From moongirlk at yahoo.com  Fri Feb  1 00:02:09 2002
From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 00:02:09 -0000
Subject: Is Lupin Passive Aggressive? was Re: Sirius' Prank etc
In-Reply-To: <a3cgle+km84@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3clu1+n9fb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34426

Aww man!  I love my Lupin, and I just don't see what you're saying, 
but darned if you don't give enough good examples to make me wonder 
if I don't see it just because I like him.  Which is your fault and 
Mahoney's (wasn't Mahoney the one who brought that up?)  Drat!  But 
let me try anyway to defend my tragic hero's honor.

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
>  
> I am not so sure all of Lupin's behavior is 
> really mild-mannered. (Pippin peers over the top of her bunker 
> and prepares to lob another grenade at  G.R.A.B. ) It could be 
> passive-agressive.  He seems to show some suspicious 
> behaviors: resisting authority, forgetting to do things, putting 
> things off, alternating hostile assertion (breaking rules) and 
> dependent contrition, complaining of being victimized.

I admit to most of these behaviors in one form or another, but I 
can't ever remember him "complaining of being victimized".  He has 
been victimized, I grant you, but I don't remember him ever 
complaining about it.  Seems to me he's pretty stoic about it.

>  Lupin agrees to Dumbledore's plan to keep him safe but 
> secretly abets the animagi capers. He feels guilty about that, but 
> eagerly takes part in planning the next adventure. 

Does he say he felt guilty at the time?  I can't remember anything 
specific, but I got the impression he felt guilty as an adult looking 
back, but at the time was suffering from teenage selective stupidity-
itis, which I recall vaguely and with a twinge of shame myself.

He takes a 
> teaching position but puts off telling what he knows about Sirius 
> and about the One-eyed witch. 

Can't justify this one, but don't think of it as passive-agressive, 
just poor judgement.

> He's reasonable in the face of 
> Snape's provocation but ridicules him behind his back. 

I don't think he ridicules him behind his back - I think the boggart 
incident was all about Neville.  After all, had Snape not tortured 
the child regularly, the boggart wouldn't have taken his form.  You 
*have* to make the boggart rediculous in order to get rid of it, and 
as the lesson was about getting rid of boggarts, I don't see how he 
could have done anything that *wouldn't* make Snape look silly that 
would still allow Neville to succeed at his task.  His own enjoyment 
of it was I'm sure great, but incidental.  :D

> He doesn't leave a lesson plan for his sub though he knows he'll be 
> absent.  

Drat again, can't justify this one except as a plot device to get 
werewolves on the agenda.

> He agrees to take his potion but forgets to do so.  

I don't accept that as passive-agressive, or in any way intentional - 
he'd just seen his old lauded-as-a-dearly-departed-hero friend show 
up alive and well on the map.  Considering what he must have been 
thinking at the time, I can't blame him for being forgetful.

He 
> displays all this poor behavior on the job but blames his lack of 
> work entirely on his lycanthropy. 

He's declared the best DADA teacher they've ever had, which isn't 
much, but from what I can gather from discussions on the list, is 
generally considered one of the best teachers, period.  If he's this 
good at teaching even while he "displays all this poor behavior", I'd 
say he'd be worth a shot at other jobs as well, but he hasn't gotten 
the chance, because he's a werewolf and people hate/fear werewolves.  
I think (don't have books with me to check) it's mostly other 
characters who say that werewolves can't get work, and there's plenty 
of evidence from the books that this is true, and not some sort of 
blame game.

He finally confesses to 
> Dumbledore but doesn't mention the Map. Instead, he  returns 
> the Map to Harry, saying that James would have been 
> disappointed if Harry never found his way out of the castle. 
> Contrast that with Sirius' advice to Harry to stay put in GoF and 
> his continuing correspondence with D.

Which in turn contrasts with Dumbledore's own behavior in giving 
Harry the invisibility cloak.  The map is a tool, and I think Lupin 
believes Harry has learned his lesson and will be using it for the 
right reasons from now on.  I saw it as a vote of confidence in 
Harry, not a subterfuge against the headmaster, who would likely have 
given it back to Harry himself had he been in the position.

> 
> Whew! I wouldn't claim that all Lupin's actions above are the 
> result of veiled hostility. But they do seem to form a pattern, 
don't 
> they? Lupin doesn't grumble much, except about the taste of the 
> potion, and he never shoots any one a resentful look, so I could 
> be wrong. 

And I dearly hope you are, as much as I admire your skill at 
presenting the case.

> But I wonder. How much hostility there is in Lupin's 
> shack lines depends on how you read them, IMO. Even spoken 
> in a light voice,  "No one's going to try and kill you till we've 
sorted 
> a few things out, "could sound very ominous, depending on 
> where you put the emphasis and the pauses. 

I can't think of a way to say that that wouldn't sound ominous, 
unless you leave out the last half of the sentence.  But I think it's 
*supposed* to be frightening and chilling.  From Peter's perspective 
Lupin is quietly and rationally discussing killing him, and that's 
just plain freaky.  Killing someone is not meant to be a rational 
thing to do.  And he is very much talking down to Pettigrew, as if 
he's impaired somehow and must be spoken to like a small child.  I 
think it was part of the dehumanizing thing that has been discussed.  
In part I think it's because he's shocked and enraged and disgusted, 
and in part it's to distance himself from someone he's always thought 
fondly of.  He's spent the last 13 years thinking of a brave little 
friend who was murdered trying to avenge their other dear friends.  
Now that he knows the truth, he's got to make it fit into his world.  
His apparent way of explaining Peter getting James and Lily killed 
and framing Sirius is to believe that he (to paraprhase Eliza 
Doolittle) doesn't have a feeling heart in him.

I don't know how this fits into the passive-agressive thing, though.  
I think Lupin is, for the most part, a very self-controlled 
individual, but in that scene I don't think he was in control of 
himself - he was all about controlling (and punishing, verbally and 
physically) the *worm* who caused death and ruin for all of his 
friends and left him alone in the world again.
I think this is one of the things that makes me love him, in a 
perverse way.  I love knowing someone is capable of something 
horrible, but they resist those impulses and choose to 'be good'.  
Unfortunately in order to know that about a person, you have to 
witness something like that.

Ok, just revealed something rather creepy about my own little self, 
didn't I?  I think I'll quit now then.


kimberly
who thinks Pippin is spot-on about what Dumbledore would have done, 
and hopes that someday the other characters (and she herself) will 
develop instincts so good.




From cindysphynx at home.com  Fri Feb  1 00:26:25 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 00:26:25 -0000
Subject: Real Wizards Aren't Squeamish (Pettigrew, Wizarding Culture)
In-Reply-To: <a3cftp+gq76@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3cnbh+k4ft@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34427

Elkins wrote:

> Pettigrew, on the other hand...well, every time we see the poor
> wretch, he's in some state of utter abjection.  If he isn't 
grovelling
> for his life, then he's weeping in helpless terror at his impending
> death at the hands of his old classmates, or he's cringing in fear
> and revulsion from his Evil Undead Baby Master, or he's screaming or
> sobbing or moaning in physical agony.  He's a broken man; his life 
is 
> just one long unending misery; I don't believe that he's enjoyed 
> a single moment of happiness or pleasure or even real contentment 
> since the first day he joined Voldemort's cause.  Even as a rat, he 
> seemed profoundly depressed. ("Sleep...eat...sleep...eat...")

Oh, gee.  What was that weird fluttering sensation?  It felt 
suspiciously like a pang of sympathy in my heart for Peter.

Well, we can't have that, now can we?  

I've never been entirely sure what to make of Peter.  I think he is 
JKR's most compelling villian in the series.  What the heck made him 
betray the Marauders?  Were James and Sirius kind of mean and 
dismissive with Peter?  Does he *really* want Voldemort restored, or 
is he just doing that because he has no where else to go?  Couldn't 
he have turned himself in when Voldemort fell and cut a deal like 
Karkaroff, claiming . . . he was under the Imperius Curse?  Why was 
he so reluctant to proceed with the plan in the beginning of GoF?

There really is a complex parallel going on with Peter, Karkaroff and 
Snape.  Each flirted with the Dark Side, and only the latter two came 
back to the forces of Good.  Peter and Karkaroff betrayed their 
friends, and Snape probably betrayed his old Slytherin buddies as 
well.  The real story of evil, I suspect, isn't Draco, Lucius or 
Voldemort, but Peter, Karkaroff and Snape.

Elkins again:

> But then, given that Cindy's admitted that she values toughness
> highly and identifies with it, while feeling little but contempt 
for 
> vulnerability and frailty, I strongly suspect that this is 
> *precisely* what makes Pettigrew her candidate for Least 
Sympathetic 
> Character.


Ya know, the Toughness meter, while useful, doesn't work in all 
circumstances.  Peter is a perfect example where it just doesn't get 
me anywhere at all.  Is Peter Tough?  Yes, because he cut off his own 
hand and considering that this probably hurt a bit, he handled it as 
well as could be expected.  No, because he does a fair amount of 
sniveling in the Shrieking Shack.  Yes, because he cut off his own 
finger.  No, because he does a fair amount of sniveling in the 
graveyard.  Yes, because he outsmarted Sirius.  The dial on the 
Toughmeter is whipping around because it can't get a reading on Peter 
at all.  I have to think of some other way to size up Peter.

And now that Elkins has made such an impassioned case for pitying 
Peter, I even have a hard time sticking by my assessment that Peter 
is the Least Sympathetic Character.  Oh, I'm so confused!

Elkins again (on Wormtail's squeamishness):
 
>He doesn't balk for so much as a second before offing 
> Cedric Diggory in the graveyard, and he couldn't have pulled off
> his snookering of poor Sirius if he'd messed up the timing on the
> muggle-blasting stunt.  <snip>
> 
> But I would agree that he doesn't like it very much.  And again, I 
> suspect that this probably acts as a black mark in Cindy's books, 
> while it's rather a sympathy point in mine.  

My goodness!  Where did I get the reputation that I prefer characters 
to kill with pleasure and glee?  Uh, maybe my remarks about Lupin?  
:-)  Well, that's completely different.  Lupin is willing to kill a 
traitor and murderer because he has to because justice requires it.  
Wormtail is killing innocent people (Bertha, Cedric) solely out of 
fear of Voldemort.  I guess his reluctance is a sign that he isn't 
pure evil really deep down, but he shows no remorse for anything he 
has done, so he's pretty darn close to pure evil.  Maybe he figures 
each murder places him that much farther from being able to return to 
proper wizarding society?  I dunno.

I wonder why Peter didn't just kill slimy baby Voldemort?  How hard 
could that have been?  Maybe that proves Peter is exactly where he 
wants to be.

Cindy (noting that no one has ever even proposed any kind of support 
group for Pettigrew)




From Zarleycat at aol.com  Fri Feb  1 00:38:54 2002
From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 00:38:54 -0000
Subject: Snape's Isolation (Was Re: Sirius and Snape frozen in time)
In-Reply-To: <a3ccp8+7qm5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3co2u+9jpe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34428

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "gypaetus16" <elfriede.schaden at c...> wrote:
 
> Snape does not have friends to discuss his problems, he does not 
have 
> social contacts to overcome the happenings of his Hogwarts time and 
> also of the time as a Death Eater in discussions. IMHO it is only 
> possible to digest and to analyse problems when you speak about 
them 
> with other people who are interested in these problems and if this 
is 
> not the case then you can only discuss your thoughts with yourself 
> which causes rather strange discussions and which does not always 
> provide solutions (in particular when you have to do 
these "yourself-discussions" for ages).
> Obviously Snape was and is not speaking about his problems even 
with 
> Dumbledore, who, I am sure, could help him a lot to change and 
develop 
> his patterns of behaviour.


This is an interesting take on Snape (just when I thought no one 
would find anything new!)

And also a good illustration of the parallels between Severus and 
Sirius.  Severus seems to maintain professional relationships with 
the other Hogwarts' teachers, but doesn't appear to be particularly 
friendly with any of them.  So, yes, he may also have been living in 
isolation, as has Sirius, but a different type of isolation.  

Maybe he's felt that people will always be suspicious of him because 
he was a DE.  Maybe Dumbledore had to pull strings and call in favors 
and jump through hoops to hire Snape because of these suspicions.  On 
the other hand, maybe no one has ever had problems with Snape's past, 
but Snape can't bring himself to believe that.  Maybe Snape does not 
feel worthy to try to interact on a more personal level because he 
carries some sort of guilt for his DE activities, whatever they may 
have been.  So, he both punishes and protects himself by sweeping 
through the halls of Hogwarts in a perpetual cloud of sneering 
disdain, keeping everyone at arms' length.


Marianne, who after all that can almost find herself liking 
Snape...Nah!




From Zarleycat at aol.com  Fri Feb  1 01:13:18 2002
From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 01:13:18 -0000
Subject: Laughing Sirius
In-Reply-To: <16a.7fea06f.298a0b81@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a3cq3e+luuu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34429

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., mrgrrrargh at a... wrote:
> I never was quite sure -- maybe I missed the explanation in the 
book -- why 
> Sirius was laughing hysterically after Peter blew up the street 
full of 
> Muggles and turned into a rat. Anyone know?


I'm of the school that believes this was an extreme reaction to 
stress.  It may well seem odd to people, but I have a friend who 
reacts the same way.  Giggles through funerals, snickers when she 
breaks up with the guy she's dating, etc.  It's not that she's 
amused, in any way.  It's just what she does.  It's like when you do 
something incredibly stupid and you make that sort of part laugh, 
part snort, part sigh sound.  Right before you say, "What an idiot I 
am!"

Take that reaction to an extreme, and you've got Sirius in the middle 
of a blown up street.  I think that Sirius was beside himself at this 
point, with grief, because of James' and Lily's deaths; with fury, at 
Peter's betrayal; and with guilt, because it was his own plan that 
led up to this horrible moment. After the street blew up, I don't 
think it would be surprising to respond with what may well have been 
dry-eyed hysteria, which could have been interpreted as maniacal 
laughter.  

Plus, Sirius does laugh at other times that might strike folks as 
odd.  In the Shrieking Shack scene, after Peter says that Sirius was 
able to escape from Azkaban because of his dark powers:

"Black started to laugh, a horrible, mirthless laugh that filled the 
whole room."  

Of course he'd laugh - here's little Peter, who knows the truth, 
still trying to avoid responsibility for what happened by trying to 
make sure everyone believes that Sirius is the Dark Lord's servant.  

And in GoF, in "Padfoot Returns" when the four are discussing Crouch 
Jr.'s arrest with a band of DEs: 

"Did Crough try and get his son off?" Hermione whispered.

Sirius let out a laugh that was much more like a bark.


Sirius is not amused at any of these situations. He's not really 
laughing.  Like my friend, it just seems to be what he does.

Marianne, glad to write about Sirius instead of Snape




From Ryjedi at aol.com  Fri Feb  1 01:27:33 2002
From: Ryjedi at aol.com (rycar007)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 01:27:33 -0000
Subject: Imperius & Religion
In-Reply-To: <a3cbcs+eth@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3cqu5+gafu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34430

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ladjables" <ladjables at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Barb writes:	
> >There's no logical reason for Crouch to 
> > do this. 
> 
> For the record I agree with you, but let's say for the sake of 
> argument that JKR's reason for having Crouch-As-Moody teach Harry 
the 
> Imperius Curse stems from Crouch's character.  

I always assumed it was Barty's subconcious hatred of the Imperius 
Curse, since he lived under it for ten years, that made him teach 
Harry how to resist it.

-Rycar




From maidne at yahoo.com  Fri Feb  1 01:40:01 2002
From: maidne at yahoo.com (maidne)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 01:40:01 -0000
Subject: Lucius theory
In-Reply-To: <a3bun7+qoo1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3crlh+5itn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34431

Lucius does mean light, but it also related to Lucifer, the given 
name of Satan, who was created to be an angel of light.  So not 
necessarily suggestive that Lucius is good.

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "boyblue_mn" <boyblue_mn at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Suki Jones <perfume_girl18 at y...> wrote:
> > I'm sure there are other people out there who share my
> > views on the Malfoy's. But I have not met them yet.
> > I think that Lucius is good and Draco is bad.
> > Why? Well, firstly; Draco's name means "dragon" ... . Dragon
> > is usually connected with Satan. That is definitely
> > dark. Lucius, on the other hand, means "light".
> > 
> 
> There is an old saying 'can't see the forest for the trees'. That 
> might apply here. Sometimes we search so hard for the hidden 
meaning 
> that we forget the obvious. Lucius Malfoy's action betray any 
theory 
> about a hidden meaning to his name.




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Fri Feb  1 01:31:28 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:31:28 -0800
Subject: Scabbers? was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Real Wizards ...
In-Reply-To: <a3cnbh+k4ft@eGroups.com>
References: <a3cnbh+k4ft@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <86115514507.20020131173128@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34432


Thursday, January 31, 2002, 4:26:25 PM, cindysphynx wrote:

>>  Even as a rat, he 
>> seemed profoundly depressed. ("Sleep...eat...sleep...eat...")

> Oh, gee.  What was that weird fluttering sensation?  It felt 
> suspiciously like a pang of sympathy in my heart for Peter.

Hi,

I'm new to the list and Harry Potter.

My husband and daughter read the books, and dragged me to
the movie a few weeks ago, even though I wasn't in the least
interested.

Well, it worked and I am now <g>.

I've read the first 3 books, and will get the 4rth one from
the library tonight, but I'll definitely read them again
several times.

On the first read I tend to go through way too fast, missing
vital little things, and after going through many of the
older posts on this list, I've already come across a lot of
things I need to re-check.

I enjoy reading all the insights and discussions concerning
the plot and characters.

Just a question:
did anyone else feel sorry for Scabbers (before the
discovery at the end) and Ron during Book 3?
It seemed as if he had hardly any support from his friends
even though Crookshanks (sp?) was obviously after Scabbers.

It's probably a bit silly, but as someone who has had many
pets (rodents included) I could emphasize with Ron, and also
the girl who's rabbit died unexpectedly.

Even though Hermione was right about the prediction having
nothing much to do with the death of her pet, it didn't seem
very kind to ask all these questions at that point.

Please excuse any spelling/grammar mistakes.
I'm from Germany, living in the US, now.

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





From Ryjedi at aol.com  Fri Feb  1 01:50:16 2002
From: Ryjedi at aol.com (rycar007)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 01:50:16 -0000
Subject: OT: Can there be Magic?
In-Reply-To: <a3c2eu+rdd5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3cs8o+uom0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34433

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" <jbryson at r...> wrote:
> Diagaon Alley, 
> the tents at WTC, Moody's trunk, would be a bubble in the 
space/time 
> continuum, and would work just fine.

WTC? Yikes, I think you mean QWC :)

> Quantum Theory; and especially Quantum Speculation about the 
> human brain, opens all kinds opportunities for magic-like effects.
> We don't hear much about what kinds of mental states witches and 
> wizards have to put their minds into when casting a spell, beyond 
> "Think happy thoughts," or "Visualize something funny," for 
> Patronum or Ridiklus.  But I suspect there is a mental process for
> each kind of spell, which requires a lot of attention from the spell
> caster.

Of course, because magic is all in your mind anyway. Our vision of 
reality becomes reality. Sure science works, it's a construct and it 
works within itself. So does math, so does Christianity, and we have 
Bible-thumpers just like textbook-thumpers. Neither can see outside 
of the construct, but see the construct for itself. The mind is what 
causes magic, ritual and ceremony simply fools the left side of the 
brain (the logical side) into thinking that you are doing a 
scientific, logical process. Cause and effect. Eventually, however, 
when you've trancended this and allow yourself to understand that 
anything can happen, you no longer need ritual as much, unless you're 
invoking or evoking spirits or gods (that we give life to anyway). 
This why Molly Weasley can do spells without saying the words, she 
can properly concentrate her mind on the spell without the guide of 
ritual.

> All in all, I think we would best serve ourselves by assuming the 
> Potterverse magic is impossible and unexplainable, even if, in our
> hearts, we know it's real.

How utterly defeatist :) Unexplainable, yes, but impossible? This I 
doubt, and I think fooling yourself into thinking with the crowd (in 
this case, conventional science) always causes problems. 

Just look at our president.

-Rycar




From djdwjt at aol.com  Fri Feb  1 02:11:30 2002
From: djdwjt at aol.com (elfundeb)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 02:11:30 -0000
Subject: name meanings - Neville
In-Reply-To: <a3cf09+ia6r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3ctgi+9luk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34434

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "david_p2002ca" <david_p at i...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "vheggie" <vheggie at y...> wrote:
> 
> > 3)Neville - a really short thought; when I think of toads or 
frogs 
> in 
> > childrens' literature (and no, I'm not going into *that* 
childrens 
> > lit vs. adults lit debate) the first thing that uccurs to me is 
> that 
> > when they're kissed they turn into princes.  Any chance this is a 
> > reflection of Neville's future, or potential?
> 
> Hmm... perhaps one of the best known Nevilles of the 20th century 
was 
> British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, of "Peace in our time" 
> fame (or infamy).
> 
> One hopes that's not in the cards... lest Hogsmeade become 
> Czechoslovakia.
> 
> 
> David

There's another Neville (or rather several of them) in English 
history from the Wars of the Roses timeframe.  One, whose first name 
I forget, was Earl of Warwick, controlled a considerable amount of 
armed forces and (my recollection gets really foggy here) I believe 
he at some point switched allegiances between the Yorkist and 
Lancaster factions with such potent effect that he was 
nicknamed "Warwick the Kingmaker."  He had two daughters, one of whom 
was Anne Neville who was married to Yorkist King Edward IV's youngest 
brother Richard, who after Edward's death became King Richard III of 
Shakespearean "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" fame.  I 
don't recall, however, what happened to Warwick after he helped put 
Edward IV [back] on the throne.  Any historians or Shakespeare 
scholars out there who can help with the facts?

It would be fascinating for our Neville to turn out to be some sort 
of kingmaker in the sense of making a choice that had a decisive 
effect on the outcome.  But I think we may be reading too much into 
this -- perhaps Neville was chosen simply because the name sounds 
aristocratic and his family is wizarding pureblood.

Debbie (keeping her fingers crossed for Neville regardless of what 
his name means)




From editor at texas.net  Fri Feb  1 02:21:41 2002
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 20:21:41 -0600
Subject: Snape (what else?), branching off a Sirius discussion
References: <a3afd4+dpj4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004501c1aac7$30525340$ab7c63d1@texas.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34435

  Cindy Quoth:

  Snape, on the other hand, has not moved past his old Hogwarts grudges at all.  Opposing Lupin's appointment as DADA teacher.  Trying to tip off the students that Lupin is a werewolf.  Spilling the beans to the Slytherins so that Lupin must resign.  Accusing Lupin of letting Black in the castle.  Motivated to catch Black in PoA to settle a school-boy grudge.  Following Lupin to the Willow not to give Lupin his potion but to catch him doing something wrong.  Being unwilling to acknowledge Black's membership on the team until Dumbledore forced him too.  Snape is also showing a certain lack of personal growth, and unlike Sirius, Snape doesn't have a very good excuse for it.

  --------This is me, I'm caught in Cindy's format. Rrgh. My thoughts:
   
  I don't think Snape is immature, so much as simply beyond caring on many points. I think he was probably immature when he went over to Voldemort, and that was part of his going, and he came of age in truly horrifying circumstances. He went from young to "seen far too much" in a very short time; he spent very little time at what most of us judge a sane, mature state. Far from not developing, he was pushed too far, to where he doesn't give a thought to what most of us think are big, major, awful things to do.

  Snape has probably been where Harry just went at the climax of book 4, a situation so charged with testing of fundamental loyalties and genuine, grinding, constant mortal danger that everything else seems trivial. Unlike Harry, I'm betting Snape lived in that mental state for rather a long time. Consequently, I suggest that it is not a case of arrested development we see in Snape's behavior now, so much as a falling back on what still seems mostly trivial, something to do while he passes the time.

  He does not expend the energy to grow and develop, unless he is forced to--why should he? After the past it is hinted that he's had, probably damn little seems very important, and the day-to-day sniping at students or rolling on with old grudges is simply his "autopilot," the mode he functions in without thinking, and again, given the past he has, he probably does not care to think too much. Perhaps he's *trying* to let such trivialities be major again, to get away from the starkness and substance of what he had to deal with before. 

  About the only thing that seems to make Snape honestly examine facts and/or his reactions (this, by inference, from changes in how he reacts to things as the story goes along) is Dumbledore, which makes me think Dumbledore was the only positive in the great struggle and danger Snape went through. I seriously doubt that, barring the Shrieking Shack scene and the "gripping the chair" moment, we have seen any of a personal level of Snape--the rest is just his "cruise" mode.

  I note also, that at the end of book 4, the look that Harry and Snape exchange seems to bode a change in how Snape sees Harry, and I think on some level it is because of this shared "beyond the trivial" experience. Snape is coming, for the first time, to see Harry as Harry and not a mass of old associations. Harry is seeing Snape as something besides a cantankerous teacher. Their prior relationship is trivial in the face of what they now face, and on some level they both know it. And I think they will both carry it on, hating each other, if for no other reason than normality.

  If that made sense.

  --Amanda


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




From ladjables at yahoo.com  Fri Feb  1 02:41:29 2002
From: ladjables at yahoo.com (Ama Byer)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:41:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Future Books/ Final  Showdown/Role of Magical Creatures/Non-Characters/Who will die? 
Message-ID: <20020201024129.44547.qmail@web20408.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34436

Just some thoughts bouncing around in my head.

Cindysphynx wrote:
>In my opinion, the pattern of the first four books is
>that the Voldemort confrontations become more
>believable and suspenseful as we move along. In other
>words, I liked the graveyard confrontation 
>better than the chamber confrontation better than the
>PS/SS confrontation. Frankly, I don't see how JKR can
>top the graveyard scene with anything other than the
>final confrontation. So I kind of hope (and predict)
>we'll get conflict between members of Voldemort's 
>team and Dumbledore's team, but no Harry/Voldemort
>smackdown until Book 7. I also figure our team will
>sustain some serious losses in the next two books,
>but will manage a jaw-dropping comeback in Book 7.

Agreed, and excellent prediction, Trelawney would be
green with envy.  I think uncmark cleverly suggested
that the final showdown between Voldemort and Harry
take place at Godric's Hollow(perhaps on the ruins of
the Potters' old home?).  This would be really neat
since it would give the books a circular trajectory,
beginning and ending at Harry's first home.  And you
can't ask for a more emotionally charged face-off 
than that.

I also think you raise a really good point regarding a
shift in focus from Harry/Voldemort, who are at the 
epicentre of the story, to peripheral conflict in
Books 5 and 6.  For one thing, such a move would
highlight the actions of not just new and secondary
characters, but those of magical creatures and beings
as well.  Who will they side with?  We already know
the dementors will be on Voldemort's side, possibly
the goblins and trolls.  I personally am dying to see
a House-elf revolt.  Once Dobby asserts his position
as rebel leader I'm sure Winky and the others will
lose their mental manacles.  They have powerful magic
and family secrets to share; they'll make important
allies for Dumbledore.  I also think Fridwulfa,
Hagrid's mother, will have some part to play in
getting the giants on Dumbledore's side.

And what about Norbert?!  I can't be the only weirdo
who thinks his introduction in SS was no throwaway
chapter?  Mark my words, Norbert will be someone's
saviour.  Remember JKR emphasizes that it's our
actions that characterize us, not our outward
appearances.  We know werewolves have redeeming
qualities, and Fridwulfa the giantess gets my respect
for daring to marry outside her race.  So never mind
Norbert is a dragon and most dragons see humans as
marshmallows for toasting.  He'll remember Hagrid,
Aragog did!  Okay, I'm undermining my point here, but
I think there's alot of fodder for OotP and Book 6. 
The positions taken by magical creatures to represent
their interests will herald social upheaval by
bringing deep-rooted prejudices to the fore.   Lots of
complications.  And then there are all those
backstories for the Potters and friends, Voldemort
etc.

Cindy again: 

>It is funny that we can have favorite non-characters,
>isn't it? I have very high hopes for Real Moody, Mrs.
>Lestrange and Mundungus, but I'm a little nervous
>that I won't care for Dedalus Diggle. Toss 
>in Rookwood and Mulciber, and I don't see how OoP can
>miss.

My Inner Eye is a bit clouded, but I predict Mad-Eye
Moody will meet his end at the hands of Mrs.
Lestrange, a Death Eater has to be his undoing, Fate
decrees it so!  Incidentally, I fervently hope that
Mrs. Lestrange is unrepentantly evil, that her soul is
a festering sore, that she hisses when she speaks,
that her eyes glow when she's mad, okay, I hope she's
really, really bad.  Because, then she can be a worthy
adversary for  McGonagall, who will FINALLY get to
flex her magic muscles when she challenges Mrs.
Lestrange to a witchly joust.  How's that for an OotP
climax?  No Voldemort, no Harry, and the women show
what they're made of! 

>Cindy (starting to sweat bullets because it is almost
>February and we don't have an OoP release date)

Don't I know the feeling!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nebulously yours, 
Ama
 


 




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com



From editor at texas.net  Fri Feb  1 03:02:27 2002
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 21:02:27 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Sirius and Snape frozen in time (WasSirius' Prank & Lupin )
References: <a3ccp8+7qm5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <012801c1aacc$e261e000$ab7c63d1@texas.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34437

Gabriele stated categorically:
Snape does not have friends to discuss his problems,

------->We absolutely cannot state this as a fact with any basis in canon. Harry would not have any idea, any more than most students would, of the interpersonal out-of-school-time relationships of his teachers.

In fact, of the very few non-Harry-influenced scenes is the staffroom scene, where it *is* still Harry observing, but his presence is unknown to the participants and therefore does not affect it. And in that scene Snape takes the lead in bearding Lockhart, and the other teachers join in without missing a beat. That, to me, implies a level of at least professional camaraderie that a student would not necessarily perceive.

Gabrielle continued:
 he does not have social contacts to overcome the happenings of his Hogwarts time and also of the time as a Death Eater in discussions. IMHO it is only possible to digest and to analyse problems when you speak about them with other people who are interested in these problems 

------->You assume Snape *wants* to dwell and dissect and discuss. (A) his character does not seem the type to me; (B) I note that you and I are both women, and would find such discussions natural and probably endless, but most men that I know operate on a more "this is what happened, okay, move on" type mode. I think it is entirely possible for a man like Snape to have rather a lot of social contact, and to keep those contacts at a distance, precisely to *avoid* having to speak about his past, thus being lulled and comforted by the *not* speaking rather than the speaking.

Gabrielle concluded:
Obviously Snape was and is not speaking about his problems even with Dumbledore, who, I am sure, could help him a lot to change and develop his patterns of behaviour.

------>Again, you can't state this categorically based on canon. We have no idea the nature of Snape's devotion to Dumbledore, nor, with one exception, how much they communicate outside Harry's range of vision. [The one exception being that Dumbledore clearly did acquaint Snape with the realities of the Sirius/Pettigrew situation sometime between books 3 and 4, because Snape's reaction to Sirius' revealing himself at the end of book 4 shows only personal revulsion. It's been explained to Snape that Sirius is not a dangerous murdering lunatic, and because Dumbledore is one of the few people Snape would believe, the implication is that Dumbledore told him.] But that's it, that's all we know about their interactions off-camera.

You also assume that Snape *wants* to change. That's a heck of an assumption. I submit that he already did, a hell of a lot, on a tectonic-plate level, and his current nastiness is merely currents swirling the surface (with the occasional Shrieking Shack volcano). I don't think personal development is high on his list; I think his young adulthood was spent in a horrifying situation, his current life is one where he prefers not to think too much about his young adulthood, his resentment of Harry and Lupin stems partly from the fact that their mere existence *makes* him think about it, and he has otherwise been simply passing the time, making students' lives miserable, until the second great conflict (which he knows is coming) comes.

--Amanda



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




From fiatincantatum at attbi.com  Fri Feb  1 02:47:49 2002
From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 21:47:49 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius' Prank & Lupin (WAS Dehumanizing Language--Sirius' Prank)
In-Reply-To: <a3aub1+cjpj@eGroups.com>
References: <a3afd4+dpj4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C59BB85.17877.591DFE5@localhost>

No: HPFGUIDX 34438

On 31 Jan 2002 at 8:13, ssk7882 wrote:

> it's not all that distant, in fact, from 
> that "I am your reproachful parent figure" tone that we see Voldemort 
> taking with his DEs in the graveyard in Book Four.

Hmm.  What I got out of that scene in the Shrieking Shack was a sense of "Good 
Cop/Bad Cop" with Lupin in the role of the "Good Cop".  Specifically, it struck 
me as possible that some of the behavior was done solely for the purpose of 
eliciting a confession from Wormtail.

  
-- 
Fiat Incantatum 
fiatincantatum at attbi.com

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





From tabouli at unite.com.au  Fri Feb  1 04:26:38 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:26:38 +1100
Subject: Fw: Hermione as JKR, Predatory Karkaroff, religion, individualism
Message-ID: <008601c1aad8$a5498040$0553dccb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 34439


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Tabouli 
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 3:17 PM
Subject: Hermione as JKR, Predatory Karkaroff, religion, individualism


Elkins:
> This last type of identification is probably the closest thing I have 
to what Tabouli describes with Hermione.  The difference, of course, 
is that while Tabouli's identification is canonically sanctioned 
(presumably she does not feel that Rowling *ever* gets 
Hermione "wrong" -- how could she?), mine with Neville is both 
canonically indefensible and indeed, on the face of it, utterly 
absurd.  <

Interesting.  Does Rowling ever get Hermione "wrong"?  For me, getting her "wrong" would be having Hermione do something which seemed out of character and implausible.  It's a writer's craft thing.  In terms of giving Hermione actions and behaviours I wouldn't go for myself, sure, quite often.  I identify strongly, but not 100%!  The two most significant differences being (a) I was *much* more socially insecure and self-conscious and took a lot longer to get over it than she did (haven't yet, entirely): I wanted people to like me much more than I wanted to wave my ideological flags (though I had no idea of how to do so, and often alienated people by being such a patronising know-it-all... sound familiar?), and (b) I was nowhere *near* that hard-working and research oriented.  I preferred a self-styled creative, erratic, think on my feet approach to things (though I "reseached"/observed human behaviour as obsessively as Hermione researches other things in books).  I was slack, lazy, disorganised, and prone to leaving things to the very last minute and Nevillesque losing and forgetting things, though no less dependent on academic success for my self-esteem.  Fear not, Elkins, I identify with Neville as well...

However.  To go back to my writerly definition of "getting Hermione wrong", I don't see this happening, because JKR understands "Hermionism" very well indeed, for a very good reason - as she has often said in interviews, Hermione is, to a large extent, JKR herself.  (Mary Sue, cry the cynics?)  I find this very interesting, and worthy of further musing on-list than I've seen to date.  JKR describes herself as "almost circular with glasses" at 11, yet is now obviously rather slim and wearing contacts (I assume).  Is Hermione's Yule Ball silky hair analogous to a sudden growth spurt related weight loss and contact lens adoption for JKR in her mid-teens?  Note also that JKR was Head Girl at her school.  Foreshadowing that position for Hermione?  How about Ron, analogous to JKR's best friend Sean.  Ship implications? (i.e. Sean had a schoolboy crush on JKR which he got over, allowing them to become best friends?).

I think there's much to be milked here...


Elkins:
> Was I the only one
left with the unsettling suspicion that Karkaroff's relationship 
with Victor might have been neither purely pedagogical nor purely 
platonic -- and almost certainly not purely consensual?<

At last!  Someone who agrees with my "Karkaroff is preying on Krum" theory!  Why else would he be eyeing Krum and Hermione with exactly the same look as Ron (who is, canonically, wearing a look of sexual jealousy)?  Not a nice thought, but certainly a plausible one which would add a few more black marks in the Karkaroff as most unsympathetic character competition.  After all, Krum is vulnerable (under his care), young and athletic (albeit duckfooted and ungainly), rich and famous...

K.I.S.S.T.H.I.S.D.U.C.K. (Karkaroff Is Suspiciously Solicitous Towards His Illustrious Student, Demonstrating Unsavory Cravings for Krum)

Chris Parnell:
> On all fronts, religion is losing its excessive moral control over
people's lives, and that is a good thing. People used to die in fear
of the Divine, and that was a terrible thing<

As others have pointed out, religion is far from weakening in a lot of places.  It seems mostly (though not exclusively) the "West" that has begun to dismiss religion as foolish superstition and embrace Science instead.  (I've talked with Muslims who come to Australia and find the casual atheism (secularism?) of most Australians shocking and incomprehensible: they saw religion to be as fundamental to life as food).  I personally wonder if this is partly responsible for the growing interest in "alternative" religions and therapies (i.e. other than the traditional religions for the Western country in question, which would probably be along Judeo-Christian lines)... they fulfil a need which cold, ruthless Science does not, allowing for some feeling of control and security - life after death, "supernatural" (=non-scientific) means of controlling the uncontrollable in life, like illness and relationships and weather, etc.

Agnostic though I am, I wonder about religion being necessarily a bad thing.  I'm wary of arguments favoured by extreme right conservative Christians (the sort who burn HP), but in some ways religion can provide the sense of certainty and security which people tend to crave. At its worst, religion can admittedly be abominable, but at its best, religion can promote compassion and good deeds and *less* fear of death, because there's a friendly afterlife waiting.  I have a high tolerance of ambiguity, for various reasons (blessing or curse?), but a lot of people don't.  Maybe one of the reasons for the social problems in the "West" is that there is no longer any unifying, reassuring moral code which defines "good" and "bad" (the law just doesn't have that emotional element), and reassures us that everyone gets what their actions deserve in the end, and as a result there's arguably a growing live for myself for the moment, all individuals in competition philosophy, and where two people's individual moral codes conflict, lawyers are mercenary warriors who become our champions and pit the codes against each other, using different interpretations of The Law and The Facts as weapons (Tabouli peeks warily through her fingers at Cindy and Penny).

Dunno.  I suppose this is part of my speculation on the costs and benefits of individualism.  People from individualist countries tend to believe that individualism (and its tenets Freedom of Choice, Personal Responsibility, Self-Determination, Self-Esteem, etc.) is the most morally evolved and superior of all values systems, and the one to which all cultures should aspire.  Well, sure, everyone thinks their own culture is the best.  It's particularly easy for individualists to believe, because their countries are more powerful, more wealthy and have an average standard of living which is generally higher than people in non-individualist countries (there are many reasons for this, of course, but it does lend itself to the feeling that this surely means their values are Right).  All the same, I'm inclined to be very cautious about this sort of thing, even though I myself have basically individualist values and plan to stick with them.  One of the reasons for this is that despite their on average higher standard of living, people in individualist countries don't necessarily seem to be happier than people in non-individualist countries.  The "freedom" and "personal choice" of individualism is often accompanied by loneliness, alienation and, in particular, punishing self-blame whenever anything goes wrong (after all, it was Your Choices that made it happen!).  Hence this almost obsessional need to find Someone Else To Blame to take away from this terrible feeling of personal responsibility... your parents, for not fostering your self-esteem, your workplace, your government, your local council, the media... quick, find someone to sue!

(sorry, getting carried away to OT land)

Dicentra:
> This black-and-white view of the world is unpalatable to some, I know,
but really there are only two trajectories one can follow: toward the
light or away from it. What constitutes toward and away and light and
darkness is up for debate in the real world, but in an alternate,
fictional universe, things get simplified for the purpose of making a
strong point.<

See above.  Who gets to define "light" and "darkness"?  The country with the most wealth and power?  *My* country (whose values are right by definition, because they're mine)?  Hmmm.  I pity bodies like the UN, trying to come up with and enforce a universal system of morality.  At what point does "personal choice" end and "violation of human rights" begin?  What happens when people "choose" to do things which "violate their rights"?  Is it fair to assume that they've just been brainwashed into that choice because we couldn't imagine ourselves making it?  The very concept of "rights" is Western universalist... isn't cultural imperialism considered Bad, these days?

The more I think about these issues, the more questions and the less answers I can find...

Tabouli.


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




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Fri Feb  1 04:34:54 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 04:34:54 -0000
Subject: Old Man Wizard (filk)
Message-ID: <a3d5tf+5hua@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34440

Old Man Wizard 

(To the tune of Old Man River, from Showboat)

Dedicated to Marina Frantz

NOTE: Voldy, with his "cold, high voice" is going to have a lot of 
trouble with some of the deep baritone passages here. 

THE SCENE: The Cemetery at Little Hangleton. Harry has just grabbed 
the Portkey and vanished. A certain awkward silence looms between 
LORD VOLDEMORT and the gathering of  Death Eaters. Finally, someone 
speaks.

NOTT (spoken): Boy, talk about beginner's luck! Not to worry, You-Who-
Must-Not-Be-Named: you'll get him next time, right?

VOLDEMORT: (casting a contemplative Cruciatus curse on all 
assembled). Thanks for that vote of confidence, Nott. Actually, it's 
really not Potter I'm most worried about. He's merely a stalking 
horse, if you will, for own old adversary, you-know-who ? no, not me, 
the other you-know-who

.

(music)
There's an ol' man who's Headmaster at Hogwarts
That's the ol' man that I'd like to waste!
What does he care for a poor Dark Lord's troubles?
What does he care that I've been disgraced?

Old man wizard
That old man wizard
He won't stay quiet
He don't deny it
He just keeps sayin'
He keeps on sayin' my name

Although my powers 
Transcend Atomic
It's clear, I'm thinkin',
He finds me comic.
That ol' man wizard
He keeps betrayin' my aim

Poor ol' me, despite my brain 
Body was lackin', an' racked with pain!
Ripped from life!
Can't exist!
Takin' over snakes
Merely to subsist....

I grew weary
But still kept tryin'
Obsessed with livin'
Afraid of dyin' 
But ol' man wizard
He kept delayin' my game

And now I'm hearin'
What's sure to scare us
Some news that's comin'
>From Richard Harris:
Straight through Book Seven
That ol' man'll keep goin' strong!

   - CMC

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





From boyblue_mn at yahoo.com  Fri Feb  1 04:52:44 2002
From: boyblue_mn at yahoo.com (boyblue_mn)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 04:52:44 -0000
Subject: OT: Can there be Magic?
In-Reply-To: <a3cs8o+uom0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3d6us+ttj6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34441

Not going to quote everything that was said. But I have some theories 
that are indirectly related to what you said.

When a first year comes to Hogwart's and they go to Charms class and 
everyone tries to levitate the feather, what can't some of them do it. 
They have the wand exactly match to them, the have the correct 
movements, they have the correct incantations. They have every bit of 
information now that they will have a week later when they can easily 
levitate the feather. So what's up with that?

I see magic as being very similar to meditation; more meditation than 
education. For any charm or curse, you have to open that part of your 
mind, spirit, magic, or whatever you want to call it. Knowledge isn't 
enough. You have to be able to free that part of yourself that allows 
that particular magic to flow.

A person who is into deep meditation, like Budhists Monk who dedicate 
their lives to reaching higher levels of conciousness. When they clear 
away all the clutter from the material world, from the cluttered 
concious minds, from the clouded spirit, they open the gateways to 
great power and knowledge. They become healers, because they have 
removed the barriers that blocks the healing energy. They are capable 
of transfering knowledge with a touch, again because that part of 
themselves is unlocked and flowing free. 

So learning magic, in a sense, is a matter of achieving a higher 
conciousness. A matter of tapping into what is already there, but 
nature, ignorance, and material confusing are hiding. 




From DMCourt11 at cs.com  Fri Feb  1 06:59:23 2002
From: DMCourt11 at cs.com (bookraptor11)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 06:59:23 -0000
Subject: Tough Peter (Was Real Wizards Aren't Squeamish )
In-Reply-To: <a3cnbh+k4ft@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3decb+m6qo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34442

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> Elkins wrote:
> 
> > Pettigrew, on the other hand...well, every time we see the poor
> > wretch, he's in some state of utter abjection.  If he isn't 
> grovelling
> > for his life, then he's weeping in helpless terror at his 
impending
> > death at the hands of his old classmates, or he's cringing in fear
> > and revulsion from his Evil Undead Baby Master, or he's screaming 
or
> > sobbing or moaning in physical agony.  > 
> I've never been entirely sure what to make of Peter.> 

Cindy again:
> Is Peter Tough?  Yes, because he cut off his own 
> hand and considering that this probably hurt a bit, he handled it 
as 
> well as could be expected.  No, because he does a fair amount of 
> sniveling in the Shrieking Shack.  Yes, because he cut off his own 
> finger.  No, because he does a fair amount of sniveling in the 
> graveyard.  Yes, because he outsmarted Sirius.  The dial on the 
> Toughmeter is whipping around because it can't get a reading on 
Peter 
> at all.  I have to think of some other way to size up Peter.
> 
> And now that Elkins has made such an impassioned case for pitying 
> Peter, I even have a hard time sticking by my assessment that Peter 
> is the Least Sympathetic Character.  Oh, I'm so confused!

After reading both Elkins' and Cindy's posts, I think Peter is tough.
I see Peter's snivelling as something that's worked very well for him 
in the past, so why wouldn't he keep using it?  Maybe he was a bit of 
a crybaby as a child.  Even if he matured and toughened he can still 
turn the waterworks on and off at will when he thinks he's around 
people who'll take pity on him. He tried it on Sirius and Lupin at 
the Shrieking Shack because it was the pattern he'd developed with 
the group in school, the weak hanger-on who had to be protected. When 
Sirius cornered him after the Potters' deaths, he judged that it 
wouldn't work on Sirius on this occasion and didn't even try. He 
worked very coolly, cutting his finger off, and accusing Sirius 
without hesitating. If he was a true coward, I think he couldn't have 
helped crying and begging first, claiming to be under the Imperious 
Curse.

Although he does whine in front of Voldemort, I don't believe he does 
it with him for the same reason. I think it's a useful strategy 
because it draws V's contempt.  V is too dismissive of him to see him 
as much of a threat (unlike Malfoy). 

Donna, who can picture Peter crying and grovelling, while the inner 
Peter is thinking *Suckers!*




From aiz24 at hotmail.com  Fri Feb  1 10:17:35 2002
From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 05:17:35 -0500
Subject: ADMIN: Touchy subjects
Message-ID: <F1891fAscbgJlHr3Oud00009629@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34443

Dear HPfGUers,

Religion, politics, and cultural differences are all acceptable topics per 
se, but please be sensitive to the fact that we do not all share the same 
views on these issues.  It is asking for a flame war when one makes 
generalizations about a particular ethnicity, opines about the desirability 
of religion becoming more or less dominant in real life, or comments 
approvingly or disapprovingly on a current head of state of a real-life 
country (Fudge-bashing is fine, of course).

Please tread with care; we are all grownups and capable of expressing our 
ideas without being insulting or dismissive--right? <sweet, patronizing 
smile>.  If not, there's plenty of dragon dung in the Magical Storeroom 
ready to be boxed and sent.  ;-)

Thank you,

Amy Z
Magical Moderator

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




From aiz24 at hotmail.com  Fri Feb  1 10:29:53 2002
From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 05:29:53 -0500
Subject: Scarred Sirius - Out-of-character - Remus Esq. - Humor - Doomed Hagrid
Message-ID: <F267GeLb5Pv8CdkZp0U0001d20f@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34444

Cindy wrote:

>you probably see Sirius as a 30-year old man who should have
>developed the maturity to acknowledge his culpability for what he did
>to Snape.

>I don't.  When it comes to maturity and personal growth, Sirius is
>frozen in time, in suspended animation, really.  He's a walking case
>of arrested development.  Still stewing over decade-old grudges,
>showing no more emotional maturity or growth than the day he left
>Hogwarts.  Still smirking about Snape's greasy hair like a pre-
>adolescent, locked in the same old tired battles.

>And why is that?  Well, he's been locked up for 12 years.  It is hard
>to manage much personal growth when one is lying on the floor of a
>cell in solitary confinement.

My thoughts exactly--except that it's much, much worse than 12 years of 
solitary <shudders, trying to imagine such a thing>.  It's been 12 years of 
almost constantly being forced to relive the worst moments of his life, and 
some of them are pretty damn bad.  I have never found a friend's murdered 
body, nor had anyone threaten to set me on fire <never mind Elkins--*I* want 
to hunt the little buggers down one by one>, yet still, being locked into my 
worst moments of loss, fear, guilt and despair is one of the worst tortures 
I can think of.  No one who had just gone through that is likely to be very 
forgiving or self-reflective.

So watch out for those Lestranges etc. when they get out of Azkaban.

Elkins wrote:

>Tabouli's identification is canonically sanctioned
>(presumably she does not feel that Rowling *ever* gets
>Hermione "wrong" -- how could she?

Just to digress, I do think authors can get a character wrong.  They are 
writing along, creating a very believable character, and then they slip and 
make the character do something that just rings false.  Characters can and 
should change, they can and should be complex, they can and should say 
things that are a bit unexpected coming from them, but sometimes an author 
ignores who the character is--typically it's in comedy, when someone says 
something out of character to achieve a joke--and that's an o.o.c. moment.  
Early Doonesbury comes to mind; Trudeau occasionally made B.D. say something 
way smarter than he was capable of in order to put the punch line in his 
mouth.  I'm a fan of character-based humor, so these things rankle.  I can't 
think of an example from HP because JKR is just really good at this stuff.  
She creates cartoonish characters at times, but so far no inconsistent ones 
that I can think of.

Cindy wrote:

>Cindy (confident that Lupin could find paid work as a lawyer)

What a mean thing to say about our favorite guy.  <bg>  (Notice that my 
warning about bewaring of generalizations does not apply to lawyer jokes.)

Gwen wrote:

<a very interesting post on humor, belying the E.B. White dictum "Analyzing 
humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies 
of it.">

>2. One-upmanship. This can slip into low comedy pretty quickly, >especially
>as insults become less about wit and more about "Yo' Mamma."

Cultural note:  "Yo' Mamma" is the shorthand for "the dozens," an 
African-American form of one-upmanship wordplay that can be very witty 
indeed.  Schoolkids might not get past uncreative insults, but insults 
beginning with "Oh yeah?  Well, YOUR Mamma is so fat . . . " and ending with 
something wildly improbable and humorous have a long and deservedly honored 
tradition.  JM2K.

I'm not sure where the character-based humor I was referring to above fits 
onto this list.  E.g., one of my favorite lines is "'Someone attacking you, 
Harry?' Seamus asked sleepily."  At the risk of dissecting the frog:  that 
line is funny not because of any wordplay or humorous physical situation, 
but because of an entire context of history and character; Harry gets 
attacked so often that his roommates can't really get too worried about it.

And I'd love to know where you'd categorize the sorts of verbal humor in 
which JKR is very adept; they usually get classified as some kind of irony, 
e.g. "Just then, Neville caused a slight diversion by turning into a large 
canary" (that's physical humor, but it's the "slight diversion" phrasing 
that makes me LOL) and "Professor Trelawney kept predicting Harry's death, 
which he found extremely annoying."

uncmark wrote:

>I didn't see the A&E interview, but did hear several JKR interviews
where she said Hagrid would be around all 7 books

Please cite?  Aberforth's Goat's site doesn't turn up anything like this.

Amy Z

---------------------------------------------------
The full list of these fouls, however, has never
been made available to the wizarding public.  It
is the Department's view that witches and wizards
who see the list 'might get ideas'.
                      -Quidditch Through the Ages
---------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




From lucy at luphen.co.uk  Fri Feb  1 11:37:04 2002
From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:37:04 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: US/English Versions
References: <a3bsq5+qi8g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00b601c1ab14$c58974a0$b0ae1e3e@stephen>

No: HPFGUIDX 34445

Eileen wrote:

I am one of the people that I suppose the American editor wanted to 
change the words for, since I 
wore a jumper as part of my school uniform in Grades 3 and 4 and it 
would indeed be frightening to see Harry in a North American jumper. 
But, it never even crossed my mind that Harry was cross-dressing. I 
just figured it was British slang for sweater. 

Erm, just to prove that British people can also be ignorant about other cultures, what's a jumper in North America??

Lucy the Drifty


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




From Whirdy at aol.com  Fri Feb  1 12:20:26 2002
From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 07:20:26 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Jumper 
Message-ID: <24.20320476.298be20a@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34446

In a message dated 2/1/02 6:40:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, lucy at luphen.co.uk 
writes:


> Erm, just to prove that British people can also be ignorant about other 
> cultures, what's a jumper in North America??
> 
> Lucy the Drifty
> 
> 
> 

A form of ladies attire, usually buttoned down the front.

whirdy


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




From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Fri Feb  1 12:48:06 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 12:48:06 -0000
Subject: Jumper
In-Reply-To: <24.20320476.298be20a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a3e2q6+cgqe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34447

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Whirdy at a... wrote:
> In a message dated 2/1/02 6:40:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, lucy at l... 
> writes:
> 
> > Erm, just to prove that British people can also be ignorant about other 
> > cultures, what's a jumper in North America??
> > 
> > Lucy the Drifty
> >  
> 
> A form of ladies attire, usually buttoned down the front.

In my experience, it's very unusual for American jumpers to button down the 
front.  They are basically a loose sleeveless dress, meant to be worn over a 
blouse.  Somewhat similar to a pinafore.  Many zip up the back, but others are 
loose enough to just slip on over the head.




From mrgrrrargh at aol.com  Fri Feb  1 04:36:44 2002
From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:36:44 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Paranoia
Message-ID: <163.81231ac.298b755c@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34448

Eloise:

> What if he's been saving Harry to preserve him for that restorative (yikes!) 
> 
> *potion*?
> 

Which makes ya wonder if Crouch was really Voldie's faithful servant at 
Hogwarts. I mean only Crouch says that he is that servant. Couldn't that 
faithful servant be another teacher -- or hell, why not a student?

Does anyone have any theories on who  could have it in for Harry?

The most obvious is Snape, but things tend not to be too obvious with JKR. 
Sirius could be guilty after all... now that would be a twist.

-SpyGameFan (who is also becoming quite paranoid)


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





From mrgrrrargh at aol.com  Fri Feb  1 05:32:05 2002
From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 00:32:05 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Imperius & Religion
Message-ID: <e6.22604234.298b8255@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34449

Bonnie:


> As has been pointed out, we only see things through Harry's eyes. I 
> think the Jews are in Ravenclaw (if there are any..) - they have a 
> separate table. And the Patils could be Christian Indians rather than 
> Hindu ones - my daughter's friend from daycare is - she wears a 
> crucifix.

You are treading a VERY fine line in your comments on Ravenclaw Jews by the 
way.

But as you mentioned, we do only see Harry's perspective. He could just be 
seeing food that he likes and ignoring food he doesn't. And as he hasn't been 
noticing Parvarti as girl, I doubt he's been studying what she eats.

-SpyGameFan


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





From mrgrrrargh at aol.com  Fri Feb  1 05:37:12 2002
From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 00:37:12 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape mentioning Peter
Message-ID: <138.8ab1b35.298b8388@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34450

Marina:

> Seems unlikely to me also.  I think that if Snape turns out to be a
> loyal DE all along, it will seriously damage (if not completely
> destroy) most readers' respect for Dumbledore's intelligence and
> judgement, and I don't think JKR wants to go there.

The thing is, Dumbledore has been wrong in his choices of faculty before. 
Look at Lockhart. His resume was good, but he had done NOTHING. Dumbledore 
hired him none the less and then had Lockhart try to leave a student for dead 
and erase the memories of the other two. Then he hired Crouch-as-Moody, also 
someone who put students in serious jeopardy -- killing one of them.

Dumbledore also keeps Treelawney in his employ, and she seems to be a fraud.

Dumbledore never said that he trusted any of these people, but he still put 
the lives of his students in peril by hiring them; so I don't think that 
Dumbledore has the best  record when it comes to faculty.

-SpyGameFan


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





From elfriede.schaden at chello.at  Fri Feb  1 05:45:24 2002
From: elfriede.schaden at chello.at (gypaetus16)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 05:45:24 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape frozen in time (WasSirius' Prank & Lupin )
In-Reply-To: <012801c1aacc$e261e000$ab7c63d1@texas.net>
Message-ID: <a3da1k+eofa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34451

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda" <editor at t...> wrote:

"Gabriele stated categorically:
Snape does not have friends to discuss his problems,..."
 
First, it is not categorally but MY point of view, such as I understood 
his situation in the 4 books. If forgot to add IMO than sorry, but for 
me it is clear that each statement in this forum is the opinion of the 
writer (I cannot imagine that someone is wasting his or her time 
writing mails about the opinion of other persons).


"That, to me, implies a level of at least professional camaraderie that 
a student would not necessarily perceive."

Friendship (i. e. people with whom you can discuss your problems and 
who in particular show interest in your problems and in a solution of 
them  - and I think Mr. Snape has a big load of them on his shoulders -
) is completely different than professional camaraderie. I myself am a 
teacher too and also have a number of "professional camaderie contacts" 
to my collegues in school but I never would discuss my problems (and 
those are real childich problems in comparison with those of friend 
Severus!) with my collegues in school, but with friends.

 
> Gabrielle continued:

"You assume Snape *wants* to dwell and dissect and discuss. (A) his 
character does not seem the type to me; (B) I note that you and I are 
both women, and would find such discussions natural and probably 
endless, but most men that I know operate on a more "this is what 
happened, okay, move on" type mode. I think it is entirely possible for 
a man like Snape to have rather a lot of social contact, and to keep 
those contacts at a distance, precisely to *avoid* having to speak 
about his past, thus being lulled and comforted by the *not* speaking 
rather than the speaking."

I never assumed that he wants to discuss, because if he wanted than he 
would do it and than he could have the possibility to mature (the 
discussion started about him frozen in time and his disability to 
mature - remember??). And discussions are helping, believe me. 
Additionally, social contacts and social contacts are different.

 
"You also assume that Snape *wants* to change"

I never assumed he wants to change (where did I do this?). I myself 
would like to change, thats all.

"I don't think personal development is high on his list; I think his 
young adulthood was spent in a horrifying situation, his current life 
is one where he prefers not to think too much about his young 
adulthood, his resentment of Harry and Lupin stems partly from the fact 
that their mere existence *makes* him think about it, and he has 
otherwise been simply passing the time, making students' lives 
miserable, until the second great conflict (which he knows is coming) 
comes."
> 
> --Amanda

This is the point. He is always thinking about his younger years but 
obviously has no possibility to digest them. And again, speaking about 
problems is part of the solution (psychoiatrists earn their money with 
discussion about problems of stangers and psychological support is part 
of any treatment in institutions such as prisons).


Gabriele






From mrgrrrargh at aol.com  Fri Feb  1 05:45:49 2002
From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 00:45:49 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Confusion with my Last Post about US/English Versions
Message-ID: <120.aafb080.298b858d@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34452

Chappnee (By the way... may I ask the origin of your name?):

> I don't mind the drawings that much.  You guys have neat little
> pictures at the beginning of your chapters that the British version doesn't 
> 
> have.

That's one of the things I love about the Brit versions. Those pictures tend 
to give away what happens in the chapter... much like the cover which tends 
to show the end of the book.

I think Mary Grandpre's art is wonderful, I just don't want the chapter/book 
ruined for me.


> My intention was not to say that Americans were stupid at all.

I certainly didn't read it as that. I read it as the way in which Americans 
act. I mean, look at the man "elected" president. During the campaign trail 
he had difficulty stringing together sentences. He called the people of 
Greece "Grecians." And yet, you really can't get to the Oval Office without 
some sort of brain power.

Now, some people might have trouble with the British words. And maybe they 
should be able to get a book that they don't have to be confused by. But I 
would like to have the original version available to me without having to 
trek hundreds of miles north to buy a copy.

-SpyGameFan (Proud non-Bush supporting American -- And I am thinking of doing 
a political HP related post... conservatives beware!)


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





From mrgrrrargh at aol.com  Fri Feb  1 05:54:19 2002
From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 00:54:19 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard Therapy (was Snape frozen in time)
Message-ID: <1e.226c5fee.298b878b@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34453

Gabrielle:

> if this is 
> not the case then you can only discuss your thoughts with yourself 
> which causes rather strange discussions and which does not always 
> provide solutions (in particular when you have to do these "yourself-
> discussions" for ages).
> 

So, uh, that isn't a good thing? I think I may need to start socializing 
then...


> Obviously Snape was and is not speaking about his problems even with 
> Dumbledore, who, I am sure, could help him a lot to change and develop 
> his patterns of behaviour.
> 

Exactly, but Snape doesn't seem to view Dumbledore as a friend, but rather as 
a boss. He only refers to him as "Headmaster," or "Professor."

Dumbledore seems to be rather friendly and available to the students. He is 
always there to help Harry, even asking if Harry is okay. He seems to be 
Hogwarts school counselor. Which makes me wonder why there isn't a separate 
position for helping students cope. I mean, from the muggle world to the 
magical world is a big change. Surely there are those who need a bit of help 
adjusting. And with all the horrible things that happen at Hogwarts one would 
think that students would need an adult to talk to.

I mean, they could talk to peers, which can be very helpful for kids. But 
there are some things that you can't talk to your friends about (see Harry's 
painful scar -- and the help of Sirius; also Hermione's time turner; and 
Ron's lack of wealth).

-Spy Game Fan (Who sincerely hopes that the List Elves realise -- yeah, 
British spelling, so sue me -- that this post was too long to combine with my 
other semi-long posts)


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





From nina.baker at uk.faulding.com  Fri Feb  1 10:54:06 2002
From: nina.baker at uk.faulding.com (nb100uk)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:54:06 -0000
Subject: name meanings - Neville
In-Reply-To: <a3ctgi+9luk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3ds4e+7d40@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34454

> >
> Debbie said: 
> There's another Neville (or rather several of them) in English 
> history from the Wars of the Roses timeframe.  > 
> It would be fascinating for our Neville to turn out to be some sort 
> of kingmaker in the sense of making a choice that had a decisive 
> effect on the outcome.  But I think we may be reading too much into 
> this -- perhaps Neville was chosen simply because the name sounds 
> aristocratic and his family is wizarding pureblood.
> 
> 
Neville's always been a favourite of mine, partly because of the name 
JKR chose.  IMO Neville Longbottom is a regional name choice, with 
JKR trying to invoke the character's accent and background. I've 
always thought that Neville, along with Seamus, Dean and the Patil 
twins, was not named for any deep and meaningful reason, but to 
convey a sense of ethnicity and family background.

I come from Lancashire in northern England, near towns such as 
Manchester and Liverpool.  In this part of the world, surnames such 
as Ramsbottom and Longbottom are very common, with town and village 
names that are similar.    

Likewise Neville (and his Uncle Algie) are very northern, working 
class names. Also mentioned in PS (SS) is my home town of Blackpool, 
where Neville was dangled off the end of the pier.  For those from 
foreign parts, Blackpool is a VERY brash seaside resort (often called 
Vegas-by-the-sea) that is visited by many Brits for a day trip or 
summer holiday (never confirmed but I'd bet JKR had a trip to 
Blackpool as a child).  

The film's portrayal of Neville was spot on for me with a slightly 
tubby Lancashire lad playing the part.  Sorry to step on anyone's 
opinion, but here in the UK, Neville is SO not an aristocratic name.

Moved to delurk and post by the mention of Neville,

NB





From jo.jackson at bigpond.com  Fri Feb  1 10:38:49 2002
From: jo.jackson at bigpond.com (Jo Jackson)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 18:38:49 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape (what else?), branching off a Sirius discussion
In-Reply-To: <004501c1aac7$30525340$ab7c63d1@texas.net>
Message-ID: <3C5AE0B9.28934.13AB588@localhost>

No: HPFGUIDX 34455

Amanda wrote:

  I note also, that at the end of book 4, the look that Harry and
  Snape exchange seems to bode a change in how Snape sees Harry, and I
  think on some level it is because of this shared "beyond the
  trivial" experience. Snape is coming, for the first time, to see
  Harry as Harry and not a mass of old associations. Harry is seeing
  Snape as something besides a cantankerous teacher. Their prior
  relationship is trivial in the face of what they now face, and on
  some level they both know it. And I think they will both carry it
  on, hating each other, if for no other reason than normality.

I've thought a lot about that look too!  I wondered if might not be the 
opening of a new relationship between them.  My thoughts went along 
these lines...Snape went back to LV, convinced him he was a DE still.  At 
that time he heard from LV, Wormtail or another DE about Harry's 
bravery.  Perhaps finally Snape is seeing Harry as something other than "a 
nasty little boy who thinks rules are beneath him"...perhaps for the first time  
he recalls that his is Lily's son too.  Because for no reason at all, (and 
you've probably already discussed this, I'm a new lurker) I always felt that 
Snape and Lily had some special connection.  And along these lines, I've 
always waited for Snape to say to Harry "you have your mother's eyes" 
and probably die straight afterwards.  Snape usually mentions James in his 
I loathe you rants to Harry - but never Lily.

Jo Jackson King

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


________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_________
______

Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin Files!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/

Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary
material from posts to which you're replying!

Is your message...
An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to
HPFGU-Announcements. Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups. None of the
above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter. Unsure? Other questions? 
Ask
your personal List Elf or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com

Unsubscribing? Email hpforgrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
________________________________________________________
____ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 






From Edblanning at aol.com  Fri Feb  1 14:24:11 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:24:11 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius and Snape/ US/English versions
Message-ID: <18f.2ba2236.298bff0b@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34456

In a message dated 01/02/02 11:41:02 GMT Standard Time, lucy at luphen.co.uk 
writes:

> Erm, just to prove that British people can also be ignorant about other 
> cultures, what's a jumper in North America??
> 
> Lucy the Drifty
> 

It's what we'd call a pinafore dress. One of the things I discovered along 
with the fact that suspenders and overalls are dungarees, vests are 
waistcoats etc.

Oh, and another note to North American English speakers. Jumper isn't slang: 
jumper, pullover and sweater are all synonyms in British English. (Well, we 
need to wear them for so much of the year that we like to give ourselves a 
bit of variety by calling them different things!)

Something else, which to my shame I have only just noticed.
I'm afraid we English do tend to use the term 'English' when we should say 
'British'.It is a trait which many our transatlantic cousins seem to share.
This whole dicussion should be under the banner US/British versions. After 
all, they are both written in English, aren't they and it is extremely 
irritating to Scottish, Welsh and Irish Britons to be thought of as English. 
Having lived in Scotland as a child I am very aware of these sensitivities. I 
am also aware of a tendency to attribute specifically English cultural traits 
to the whole of the Kingdom. For instance, someone mentioned the Anglican 
Church being the national church since the reformation, when in fact the 
established church in Scotland ( the Church of Scotland) is Presbyterian. 
We British of course are similarly insensitive to North American differences. 
I do wish there was an easy way to refer to US citizens with out falling back 
on the innacurate 'American', which is what, of course we Brits do amongst 
ourselves. Similarly, I wish there was a brief way to refer to North American 
and British English. If there is, please tell me.

Amanda re Snape: 

>He does not expend the energy to grow and develop, unless he is forced 
to--why >should he? After the past it is hinted that he's had, probably damn 
little seems very >important, and the day-to-day sniping at students or 
rolling on with old grudges is >simply his "autopilot," the mode he functions 
in without thinking, and again, given >the past he has, he probably does not 
care to think too much. Perhaps he's *trying* >to let such trivialities be 
major again, to get away from the starkness and >substance of what he had to 
deal with before. 

This ties in with that nice theory someone had (sorry, still can't remember 
who it was) that Snape is a *reluctant* good guy, acting against character. I 
wonder if all this surface level nastiness is a safety valve, a release of 
the tension that being virtuous at a deeper level imposes on him. I like the 
geological analogies in your next post, Amanda:

 >You also assume that Snape *wants* to change. That's a heck of an 
assumption. I >submit that he already did, a hell of a lot, on a 
tectonic-plate level, and his current >nastiness is merely currents swirling 
the surface (with the occasional Shrieking >Shack volcano). 

Yes, what he does now is nothing compared to what he has seen and done in the 
past. I think those tectonic plates are still sliding around a bit. There's a 
lot of stress and tension down there and earth tremors are going to happen 
and volcanoes erupt now and  then.

There's been some discussion of Snape's ? loner status. Yes, I think there's 
some feminine bias here. We girls know the therapeutic value of talk, but 
chaps don't do it so much, do they? That whole Venus and Mars thing. I don't 
think we have any evidence that Snape *is* a loner. He had that band of 
Slytherins as a schoolboy, though what their relationships were, we can only 
guess. But now, who could he talk to on a personal level (even assuming he 
wanted to)?  There is no-one, even the near- omniscient Dumbledore, who can 
possibly know what he has been through, aside form the fact that most, if not 
all of it, is secret, anyway.

By the way, I feel that the Snape/ Sirius discussions of late have got a bit 
stuck on the schoolboy prank subject ( looking sheepish, as I think it was a 
throw-away remark of mine that brought it up again). If Snape was (as is 
often supposed) the one who warned Lily and James about Voldemort, he has 
also had thirteen years to store up resentment against the man that he thinks 
foiled his attempt to save them. He *does* think Sirius was the mole. He 
*does* want revenge for the murder he tried to prevent. The fact that he's 
also one of his worst childhood enemies is the icing on the cake. The fact 
that it was another of his worst childhood enemies that he was trying to save 
probably only makes it worse.

Eloise, who's recovered from yesterday's attack of hysteria, but is off to 
polish her Foe Glass, just in case.


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




From Whirdy at aol.com  Fri Feb  1 16:15:21 2002
From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:15:21 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Jumper
Message-ID: <28.2175e9c4.298c1919@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34457

In a message dated 2/1/02 7:49:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Joanne0012 at aol.com writes:


> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Whirdy at a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 2/1/02 6:40:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, lucy at l... 
> > writes:
> > 
> > > Erm, just to prove that British people can also be ignorant about other 
> > > cultures, what's a jumper in North America??
> > > 
> > > Lucy the Drifty
> > >  
> > 
> > A form of ladies attire, usually buttoned down the front.
> 
> In my experience, it's very unusual for American jumpers to button down the 
> front.  They are basically a loose sleeveless dress, meant to be worn over 
> a 
> blouse.  Somewhat similar to a pinafore.  Many zip up the back, but others 
> are 
> loose enough to just slip on over the head.
> 
> 
> 

Perhaps they were faux buttons I saw.  What shall we call one who wears one 
of the garments - a jumpee  :-)


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




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Fri Feb  1 14:44:29 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 14:44:29 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's judgement(Was Re: Snape mentioning Peter)
In-Reply-To: <138.8ab1b35.298b8388@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a3e9kd+it0h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34458

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., mrgrrrargh at a... wrote:

> The thing is, Dumbledore has been wrong in his choices of faculty
before. 
> Look at Lockhart. His resume was good, but he had done NOTHING.
Dumbledore 
> hired him none the less 

Well, we're told that Lockhart was the only available candidate that
year, so Dumbledore was kind of stuck.  We also don't know how that
Dumbledore has total control over the hiring of teachers.  He's the
headmaster, yes, but we know there's a board of directors who have the
power to remove him, to put Dementors on the grounds against his will,
etc.  Lockhart was a glamorous celebrity -- it's possible that the
board insisted on his hiring over Dumbledore's protests.  

Also, Dumbledore never expressed any special confidence either in
Lockhart's loyalty or in his ability.  OTOH, he has made a point of
expressing such confidence in Snape.  And snape has been teaching at
Hogwarts for years, possibly for over a decade, so for Dumbledore to
remain blind to his true loyalty, he'd have to cross the line from
ordinary human fallibility to utter idiocy.  I'm willing to believe
that Dumbledore makes mistakes, even fairly serious ones (he didn't
catch on to Peter's traitorousness all those years ago, either), but I
don't think he's capable of a blunder that big.

> Then he hired Crouch-as-Moody, also 
> someone who put students in serious jeopardy -- killing one of them.

I suspect he hired Moody before Crouch began his impersonation. 
Failing to spot the impostor *was* a major lapse on his part, though. 
I'm inclined to see this as a sign of Crouch's brilliant cunning
rather than Dumbledore's stupidity, but that's just my own personal
reaction based on emotional investment and wishful thinking.

> 
> Dumbledore also keeps Treelawney in his employ, and she seems to be
a fraud.

Not a total fraud, apparently -- we've seen her make one accurate
prediction, and we've been told of one other.  Divination appears to
be a very rare talent, so maybe Trelawney is, like Lockhart, the only
available candidate.  (I don't know why Hogwarts has a Divination
class at all -- it doesn't appear to be a teachable skill.)

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com






From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Fri Feb  1 15:49:03 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 15:49:03 -0000
Subject: Sirius and Snape/ US/English versions
In-Reply-To: <18f.2ba2236.298bff0b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a3eddf+aoaj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34459

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:

> By the way, I feel that the Snape/ Sirius discussions of late have
got a bit 
> stuck on the schoolboy prank subject ( looking sheepish, as I think
it was a 
> throw-away remark of mine that brought it up again). If Snape was
(as is 
> often supposed) the one who warned Lily and James about Voldemort,
he has 
> also had thirteen years to store up resentment against the man that
he thinks 
> foiled his attempt to save them. He *does* think Sirius was the
mole. He 
> *does* want revenge for the murder he tried to prevent. The fact
that he's 
> also one of his worst childhood enemies is the icing on the cake.
The fact 
> that it was another of his worst childhood enemies that he was
trying to save 
> probably only makes it worse.

I also think that Sirius' prank and subsequent "betrayal" are closely
connected in Snape's mind.  He has always maintained that the prank
was a deliberate murder attempt, but nobody else saw it that way. 
When Sirius turned out to be the traitor, I think Snape saw it as a
validation -- "see, he really is a killer, I've said so all along." 
Absolving Sirius of one crime would mean absolving him of the other,
too, or at least admitting the possibility of it.  I'm not sure that
Snape is capable, after fifteen years of carrying a grudge, to turn
around and say "Oops, I guess I was wrong after all."

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com






From mercia at ireland.com  Fri Feb  1 15:56:56 2002
From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 15:56:56 -0000
Subject: About Ron (not shipping)
Message-ID: <a3eds8+gjji@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34460

I had a scarily nasty thought about Ron this morning. Into my mind, 
when I wasn't even thinking about HP, flitted the number of times we 
hear Ron's resentment about his family's poverty. 'I hate being poor' 
sort of thing. I started to wonder if these could be hints of 
a 'fatal flaw' that could render him corruptible, particularly when 
added to his unrecognised jealousy (unrecognised by himself that is) 
of Harry and his fame, and his psychological need (revealed in the 
mirror or Erised) to gain status in his own right. 

The first group of friends after all had their unexpected traitor in 
the midst who was corrupted by Voldermort. Much though I hated the 
thought I began to wonder if Ron could eventually become so 
embittered by his circumstances and these slight cahracter flaws that 
he would turn to the dark. It's sort of what he fears for Fred and 
George in GoF when he thinks they have become so obsessed by money 
and that could be either a sign that he himself will have the 
strength to resist or a dramatic irony preceding his own fall. I 
really, really don't want to think this, but it would make for some 
very profound strands in the story and could be the sort of area JKR 
wants to explore. She does have a way of reversing all previous 
expectations. 

So go on, folks, please, please prove me wrong.

Could I just add how much I have enjoyed, as a newbie, reading some 
of these discussions, even if I haven't joined in much yet. I 
particularly appreciated the whole bunch of replies to the 'Harry 
Potter a worthwile series?' post. I am a Christian minister working 
with students and have had to defend my appreciation for 'Harry 
Potter' on such grounds on various occasions. The posts provided me 
with loads of ammunition for future debates. I just wish I could feel 
the original poster had read a word of them, let alone come to any 
better understanding. I work in Northern Ireland so I have few 
illusions about the power of religious bigotry. 

meglet2/Mercia





From gwynyth at drizzle.com  Fri Feb  1 16:59:45 2002
From: gwynyth at drizzle.com (Jenett)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 08:59:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's judgement(Was Re: Snape mentioning
 Peter)
In-Reply-To: <a3e9kd+it0h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0202010852070.27407-100000@drizzle.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34461

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, marinafrants wrote:
> Not a total fraud, apparently -- we've seen her make one accurate
> prediction, and we've been told of one other.  Divination appears to
> be a very rare talent, so maybe Trelawney is, like Lockhart, the only
> available candidate.  (I don't know why Hogwarts has a Divination
> class at all -- it doesn't appear to be a teachable skill.)

Actual prophecy qua prophecy or foresight isn't really teachable, no. 

But it *is* possible to learn to use the common tools (tea, crystal 
gazing, tarot cards) to help you put a face on vague feelings. Most people 
can usually learn to use one or more of those methods to help them clarify 
stuff they're seeing subconsciously if they put the work in. 

Astrology's even simpler: while there is definitely an art in 
interpretation of charts, the actual putting together of charts is a 
science much more than an art. Even if you don't want to actually 
interpret your own chart, it's probably handy to be aware of what's 
involved. 

I'm given to understand by people who've studied astrology a 
lot more that *general* profiling is fairly easy to do, but that pinning 
down a specific event involves as much prophetic divination (i.e. 
something that just hits you on the head with no real 'factual' basis) as 
anything else. 

However, it's also true for people that *exposure* to the tools sometimes 
helps them develop more talent with the art - because there's an easier 
conduit for that information to flow, and also simply because you're 
spending some time being open to the possibility of seeing things. 

Some people don't need that, or find the tools to be a distraction (Ron,
if the theories about him being a Seer are accurate, for example). But
that doesn't mean learning how ot use the tools is a generally bad idea. 
And *certainly*, learning about the tools in school would make the kids 
less prone to being taken in by people who abuse the tools later on in 
life, which I think is definitely not a bad thing.

It's also worth noting that Divination isn't a required course, as 
Hermione proves. So people who really don't care about it don't need to be 
there. 

-Jenett
	




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Fri Feb  1 17:24:07 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 17:24:07 -0000
Subject: US/English Versions
In-Reply-To: <00b601c1ab14$c58974a0$b0ae1e3e@stephen>
Message-ID: <a3eivn+oeim@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34462

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Lucy Austin" <lucy at l...> wrote:
> Eileen wrote:
> 
> I am one of the people that I suppose the American editor wanted to 
> change the words for, since I 
> wore a jumper as part of my school uniform in Grades 3 and 4 and it 
> would indeed be frightening to see Harry in a North American 
jumper. 
> But, it never even crossed my mind that Harry was cross-dressing. I 
> just figured it was British slang for sweater. 
> 
> Erm, just to prove that British people can also be ignorant about 
other cultures, what's a jumper in North America??
> 
> Lucy the Drifty

It's a sort of dress that little girls wear often (especially in 
uniforms), though there are adult jumpers. There's a wide variety of 
jumpers, b, the stereotypical jumper looks like this 
http://www.fleecefarm.com/cgibin/web_store/web_store.cgi?
product=KidsJumpers&cart_id=2235107_11887 My uniform didn't have any 
waist (as do many jumpers) and it was green with a white blouse, and 
green/black leotards and  and boy were we excited to switch to kilts 
in Grade 5.

Eileen




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Fri Feb  1 17:39:48 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 17:39:48 -0000
Subject: About Ron (not shipping)
In-Reply-To: <a3eds8+gjji@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3ejt4+p70g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34463

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "meglet2" <mercia at i...> wrote:
> I had a scarily nasty thought about Ron this morning. Into my mind, 
> when I wasn't even thinking about HP, flitted the number of times 
we 
> hear Ron's resentment about his family's poverty. 'I hate being 
poor' 
> sort of thing. I started to wonder if these could be hints of 
> a 'fatal flaw' that could render him corruptible, particularly when 
> added to his unrecognised jealousy (unrecognised by himself that 
is) 
> of Harry and his fame, and his psychological need (revealed in the 
> mirror or Erised) to gain status in his own right. 

ARGGGHHHH! As I confessed to the board a while ago, I get very touchy 
over this argument, b/c I have a lot in common with Ron in character, 
situation, and family. No, he's not going to go evil! :-)

> So go on, folks, please, please prove me wrong.

OK. What about JKR going on a TV special, and talking about how much 
Ron is based on her friend Sean, always loyal and supportive through 
the ups and downs of her life? If Ron's turning evil, would she do 
that to her friend?

>I 
> particularly appreciated the whole bunch of replies to the 'Harry 
> Potter a worthwile series?' post. I am a Christian minister working 
> with students and have had to defend my appreciation for 'Harry 
> Potter' on such grounds on various occasions. The posts provided me 
> with loads of ammunition for future debates. 

That was quite interesting, though, as you mentioned, I'm afraid none 
of it got through! :-(

> meglet2/Mercia

"Mercia"? Sorry, I'm obsessed with "Mercia" now, ever since I 
discovered that it's a Latinization of what we Tolkienites know as 
the Mark, and was besides being a fictional kingdom in the Lord of 
the Rings one of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Is that the same Mercia? 
Or does it come from somewhere else?

Eileen




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Fri Feb  1 15:17:31 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 15:17:31 -0000
Subject: Harry classmates "code"
In-Reply-To: <b6.5bd7f58.298ac2c8@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a3ebib+rd8s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34464


> 
> Laoise said:
> 
> > But i don't know what the other symbols represent , 
> > there is a star,a star with a circle around it and an N with a 
square 
> > around it.
> 

JKR said that one of the things her list of Harry's classmates 
indicated was parentage. Look at middle column. Some students 
have "N" surrounded by a square, and some have stars (sometimes 
circled, sometimes not).  The key, I think, is Seamus Finnigan.  He 
said in PS/SS that his dad is a muggle and his mom is a witch.  
Seamus's symbol is a star which is circled, and then 1/2 of the 
circle is made into star.  1/2 a star; 1/2 magical parentage.  So, 
perhaps the stars are magical parents.  Look who has the "N" symbol 
instead-- Hermione and Justin Finch-Fletchley, both of whom have non-
magical parents.  Does anyone know if the other 3 "N's" on the list 
are muggle-born?

"jklb66"




From bonnie.abrams at cwine.com  Fri Feb  1 16:34:21 2002
From: bonnie.abrams at cwine.com (sing2wine)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 16:34:21 -0000
Subject: In Defense of Jewish Ravenclaws & "Why Excuse Snape"
Message-ID: <a3eg2e+4si7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34465

I wrote:
"I think the Jews are in Ravenclaw (if there are any..) - they have a 
separate table." 

SpyGameFan wrote:
"You are treading a VERY fine line in your comments on Ravenclaw Jews 
by the way."

How is this treading any finer a line than your comments about the 
relative intellect of Americans and the political statements about 
Bush? (although I quite agree with you!).

So, as you defended those posts, I will defend mine. This was 
certainly no ethnic slur! I once put out a post about what houses 
people thought they would be sorted into. We know Jenny is a 
Ravenclaw and I surmise I would be one, too. We are both Jewish.
Perhaps if I'd worded my post "What if the Jews are in Ravenclaw" 
instead of "I think the Jews are in Ravenclaw", SpyGameFan would have 
taken it differently....

Marianne writes:
"Maybe Snape does not 
feel worthy to try to interact on a more personal level because he 
carries some sort of guilt for his DE activities, whatever they may 
have been. So, he both punishes and protects himself by sweeping 
through the halls of Hogwarts in a perpetual cloud of sneering 
disdain, keeping everyone at arms' length."

Just as Uncmark asked "Why does everyone hate Hagrid?" (..one of MY 
favorite characters...) I ask "Why is everyone trying to excuse 
Snape?" Why is everyone (even Marianne - who like me, professes to 
dislike Snape!) looking for childhood trauma and unrequited love to 
excuse Snape for ever having become a DE and for the inexcusable way 
in which he treats Harry and Neville and Hermione - and that whole 
class of Gryffindors? If, as was mentioned in several earlier posts, 
he hates Harry because among other things, he seems to be able to get 
away with breaking rules and that's not fair - what is fair about 
Snape favoring his own students? Draco is Snape's favorite student 
and Draco has certainly not shown many positive character traits yet.
(I was going to say Draco has not yet shown he has a decent bone  
in his wretched little body but then someone will surely point out  
his tentative warning to Hermione at the Quidditch World Cup and the 
fact that his evil DE father seems to bully him. In pre-defense, 
I will remind them of another earlier post about Harry's wretched 
treatment by the Dursleys and how he still manages to be be very 
altruistic....) 

Bonnie / sing2wine

 









From devin.smither at yale.edu  Fri Feb  1 17:18:57 2002
From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 17:18:57 -0000
Subject: OT: Can there be Magic?
In-Reply-To: <a3d6us+ttj6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3eim1+2ven@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34466

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "boyblue_mn" <boyblue_mn at y...> wrote:
> When a first year comes to Hogwart's and they go to Charms class 
and 
> everyone tries to levitate the feather, what can't some of them do 
it. 
> They have the wand exactly match to them, the have the correct 
> movements, they have the correct incantations. They have every bit 
of 
> information now that they will have a week later when they can 
easily 
> levitate the feather. So what's up with that?
> 
> I see magic as being very similar to meditation; more meditation 
than 
> education. For any charm or curse, you have to open that part of 
your 
> mind, spirit, magic, or whatever you want to call it. Knowledge 
isn't 
> enough. You have to be able to free that part of yourself that 
allows 
> that particular magic to flow.

Interesting theory, but I don't think it stands up to canon 
evidence.  What about Hermione?  She's in their "Wingardium 
Leviosa"ing the first feather that comes up, and informing Ron that 
his accents in the words are wrong (which seems to indicate the words 
are actually important in casting a spell).  She has to teach Harry 
how to use a Summoning Charm properly.  It seems to me that this 
indicates that practicality is a vital portion of magic.

Having said that, perhaps certain PARTS of magic have to do with 
opening an inner part of yourself, and just letting flow.  For 
instance, Harry has an instantaneous connection with flying on a 
broomstick, and with breaking out of Imperius.  Perhaps these are the 
more ethereal, psychic connections (along with Divination) whereas 
levitating a feather and transforming mice into snuff boxes (or is it 
the other way around?) and creating potions are more practically 
oriented.  Besides, Hermione does put a lot of focus on knowledge, 
and never mentions a sort of connection/flow with the magic that 
Harry seems to feel the first time he flies on a broom.

Devin





From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Fri Feb  1 17:31:01 2002
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 17:31:01 -0000
Subject: The Pop-Psychology of Peter and Animagus Thoughts
In-Reply-To: <a3cnbh+k4ft@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3ejcl+17qu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34467

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> I've never been entirely sure what to make of Peter.  I think he is 
> JKR's most compelling villian in the series.  What the heck made him 
> betray the Marauders?  Were James and Sirius kind of mean and 
> dismissive with Peter?  Does he *really* want Voldemort restored, or 
> is he just doing that because he has no where else to go?  Couldn't 
> he have turned himself in when Voldemort fell and cut a deal like 
> Karkaroff, claiming . . . he was under the Imperius Curse?  Why was 
> he so reluctant to proceed with the plan in the beginning of GoF?
> 

I think Sirius captures the essence of Peter's character perfectly when he says that he is the person who hangs 
around with people stronger than he is in order to feel powerful.  When you're a child you accept that it's the job of 
certain people to protect you, but as you grow older you begin to resent it.  I suspect Peter loved and hated his friends 
for always protecting him.  In his own mind, he might have felt that they didn't appreciate him, that they looked down 
on him for being so weak - which he was, too weak to ever step out of their shadows.  Peter must have hated himself 
for that weakness, and ended up hating the people who were constantly helping him for bringing it to light.  He might 
have even felt that they were dominating him.  I wonder how it felt to have Sirius say to him "We'll make you the 
Secret Keeper, Peter, because you're so worthless that no-one will ever imagine that we'd do it."  Note that I'm aware 
that Peter was already working for Voldemort for some time when the Potters made him their Secret-Keeper, and 
that Sirius probably didn't say (or mean) anything in the vein of what I just wrote - but that might have been what 
Peter heard, and maybe he'd heard more than a few things like this in more than 10 years, even if they were all in his 
own head.  

Being so conflicted over whether he wanted his friends' protection or not, he couldn't just start asserting himself and 
try to gently pull away from them, he had to destroy them.  The irony of the situation being of course, that when he 
thought he was asserting himself, finally stepping out of the perceived tyranny of his friends, he was actually 
sublimating himself to someone much stronger and more dangerous, who didn't care one bit about what happened to 
him.  It's hinted at in GoF that Peter is disgusted by Voldemort (although that may be just because Voldemort looks so 
disgusting at that point), and I suspect that he feels towards him now much as he felt towards the Marauders.  If he 
had the courage, which he won't, not unless Voldemort is very weak and is definitely about to lose the fight, I suspect 
he would kill Voldemort himself.

I see Peter as the Gollum character in HP-verse.  The parallel sort of leaps up at you when Dumbledore tells Harry that 
by sending Voldemort a servant in Harry's debt, he has weakend the dark lord, and that Peter may very well have an 
important part in defeating Voldemort (although probably not a willing one.)  It is said of Gollum at some point in LOTR 
that he hates the ring, and loves it, which is what got me thinking along these lines in the first place.  Like Gollum, 
Peter seems pathetic, but is quite dangerous, especially when cornered.  He is a rat (a very apt animagus form) - 
sneaky, devious, always looking out for number one, and if you push him too far he will bite.  As someone mentioned 
earlier, he has no qualms about killing Cedric, and manages to chop off his own hand, which is not just hard, it should 
be impossible with a dagger - there's a bone there, for crying out loud - and once the dark lord was defeated he 
managed to shift the blame to someone else and get away - and I doubt that he'd been planning much in that 
direction since it was so unthinkable that anything would stop Voldemort, certainly not a little boy.  But he's unlikely to 
channel any of that ability towards striking out on his own.  Peter is a survivor, not an initiator - great at dealing with 
crises, but awful at avoiding them or improving his own lot.

I can't say that I feel too much sympathy for Peter, or if I do it's the sort of feeling you get when you see a bad car 
crash - what a shame, what a waste of a life.  

And since I already mentioned apt animagus forms, I've been thinking about the different animals the Marauders turn 
into.  Lupin, of course, can't help his animal form, although I find it interesting that the man who becomes the wildest 
and most uncontrollable animal of the four friends has become the most self-possessed, controled human - over-
compensation?  Or does HP canon allow for werewolves to sponaneously transform when they lose control of their 
emotions?  Sirius' transformation into a giant dog allows for some very fun red herrings in PoA, not to mention that 
Padfoot, the giant spectral dog who haunts cemetaries and suchlike is part of Scottish (?) folklore.  The dog also ties in 
to the role that Sirius adopts in GoF, of Harry's protector.  But I can't make any sense of Prongs.  A stag?  A freaking 
stag?  What the hell is up with that?  Of all the animals you'd want to turn into in order to control a werewolf...  I 
realise stags must be very strong (I also realise I know next to nothing about them, as I live in the Middle East), but 
they're awfully noticeable.  Sirius can turn into a dog and pose, in his words, as a loveable stray (imagine the kid who 
tries to adopt Snuffles, and Sirius' desperate attempts to get out of his brand new collar), but people would notice a 
stag walking down the street, or for that matter on the Hogwarts ground.  Where are stags generally found, anyway?  
Don't they move in groups?  More importantly, does anyone have any ideas on the importance of James' animagus 
form from a symblism standpoint?

Whew, this turned out longer than | expected, I hope it gets read.
Abigail






From christi0469 at hotmail.com  Fri Feb  1 18:24:23 2002
From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 18:24:23 -0000
Subject: OT: Can there be Magic?
In-Reply-To: <a3eim1+2ven@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3emgn+9ib4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34468

> Devin said,

What about Hermione?  She's in their "Wingardium 
> Leviosa"ing the first feather that comes up, and informing Ron 
that 
> his accents in the words are wrong (which seems to indicate the 
words 
> are actually important in casting a spell).  She has to teach 
Harry 
> how to use a Summoning Charm properly.  It seems to me that this 
> indicates that practicality is a vital portion of magic.
> 
> Having said that, perhaps certain PARTS of magic have to do with 
> opening an inner part of yourself, and just letting flow.  For 
> instance, Harry has an instantaneous connection with flying on a 
> broomstick, and with breaking out of Imperius.  Perhaps these are 
the 
> more ethereal, psychic connections (along with Divination) whereas 
> levitating a feather and transforming mice into snuff boxes (or is 
it 
> the other way around?) and creating potions are more practically 
> oriented.  Besides, Hermione does put a lot of focus on knowledge, 
> and never mentions a sort of connection/flow with the magic that 
> Harry seems to feel the first time he flies on a broom.
> 

 What I found the most interesting about Hermione tutoring Harry on 
the Summoning spell was her insistance that he study the theory. It 
leads me to believe that nagic could be a manifestation of science, 
most likely physics (manipulation of force). I'm not sure how the 
pronuciation is important (Flitwick says it is); perhaps it helps 
you tap into some sort of genetic memory.


Christi





From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu  Fri Feb  1 18:49:12 2002
From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (Hillman, Lee)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:49:12 -0500 
Subject: more on humour
Message-ID: <95774A6A6036D411AFEA00D0B73C864303B057E6@exmc3.urmc.rochester.edu>

No: HPFGUIDX 34469

Heh, someone liked my humour post.

I also have to acknowledge the two I left out, helpfully provided by Zorb
(?): Dark Humour and Parody (though Parody can also be included in farce,
sometimes. But it's different enough to warrant its own category. Thanks!).

And Amy said: 
> Cultural note:  "Yo' Mamma" is the shorthand for "the dozens," an 
> African-American form of one-upmanship wordplay that can be very witty 
> indeed.  Schoolkids might not get past uncreative insults, but insults 
> beginning with "Oh yeah?  Well, YOUR Mamma is so fat . . . " and ending
with 
> something wildly improbable and humorous have a long and deservedly
honored 
> tradition.  JM2K.

Ah, yes, this is exactly what I was thinking of. This type of 1-up and a
wittier type of 1-up are still both 1-up, but Yo'Mamma, because it generally
draws as its humour descriptions of either disgusting, immoral, or both
behaviour, is "lower" because it's capitalizing on physical humour.
Witticism directed at someone else's ability/capability is still 1-up, but
it's more witty, therefore it's "high" comedy. Get it? Got it? Good.

Amy continued:
> I'm not sure where the character-based humor I was referring to above fits

> onto this list.  E.g., one of my favorite lines is "'Someone attacking
you, 
> Harry?' Seamus asked sleepily."  
<snip> and:

> And I'd love to know where you'd categorize the sorts of 
> verbal humor in which JKR is very adept; they usually get classified as
some 
> kind of irony, e.g. "Just then, Neville caused a slight diversion by
turning 
> into a large canary" (that's physical humor, but it's the "slight 
> diversion" phrasing that makes me LOL) and "Professor Trelawney kept
predicting 
> Harry's death, which he found extremely annoying."

Et voila, Amy has discovered yet another form of high comedy I forgot to
mention: Irony. Irony is a big one. Ooh, I use it all the time--how could I
forget Irony? It's almost...ironic. 

I think Seamus's comment I would classify as irony. Well, maybe I wouldn't.
Hm. The "slight diversion" thing is the art of understatement, which is a
subset of irony, to be sure.

I guess, in the sense that both exaggeration and understatement are ironic
forms of humour, Seamus does fit. He's forming a conclusion based on
experience, but blowing it out of proportion. Yeah, I'd say that's irony.
Yes, JKR does irony often and well. (Side note: if written, it's irony. If
spoken, it's sarcasm. So Ron's little comments are "sarcastic" if we are
talking about his delivery, but "ironic" if we are discussing JKR's literary
convention with the character.)

Gwen (who enjoyed dissecting the frogs in class--in fact, whose group had to
agree to take turns with the scalpel so everyone would get a chance....Poor
Bernard--oops, Bernice, we discovered. Ah, heck, she didn't care--she was
dead.)



From andrew_macian at yahoo.com  Fri Feb  1 18:58:35 2002
From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 10:58:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Pop-Psychology of Peter and Animagus Thoughts
In-Reply-To: <a3ejcl+17qu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020201185835.87079.qmail@web9502.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34470

Greetings from Andrew!

A little research, well-applied....
--- abigailnus <abigailnus at yahoo.com> wrote:
{snip}


> protector.  But I can't make any sense of Prongs.  A
> stag?  A freaking 
> stag?  What the hell is up with that?  Of all the
> animals you'd want to turn into in order to control
> a werewolf...  I 
> realise stags must be very strong (I also realise I
> know next to nothing about them, as I live in the
> Middle East), but 
> they're awfully noticeable.  Sirius can turn into a
> dog and pose, in his words, as a loveable stray
> (imagine the kid who 
> tries to adopt Snuffles, and Sirius' desperate
> attempts to get out of his brand new collar), but
> people would notice a 
> stag walking down the street, or for that matter on
> the Hogwarts ground.  Where are stags generally
> found, anyway?  
> Don't they move in groups?  More importantly, does
> anyone have any ideas on the importance of James'
> animagus 
> form from a symblism standpoint?

The stag is known in most Western European myth as the
the king of the forest, and is used as one of the
strongest symbols of Herne, the God of the Hunt. 
Herne also is the God who taught men how to hunt and
thus provide for their families/clan/kin.  Also, the
stag's horns appear in the Old Religion as the mark of
the Horned Man, the human living symbol and presumed
son of the God.  It has also been noted/speculated
upon the relationship between Herne/Horned Man and
Robin Hood.

So, for James to appear as a stag is in line with
being a *very* strong protector symbol, both for Lupin
and his other friends, as well as for his son.

Does this make better sense now?

Cheers,

Drieux

=====
ICQ # 76184391

'Each game of chess means there's one less
      Variation left to be played;
 Each day got through means one or two less
      Mistakes remain to be made.'
      --'Chess' by Sir Tim Rice

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com



From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Fri Feb  1 19:02:02 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 19:02:02 -0000
Subject: Confusion with my Last Post about US/English Versions
In-Reply-To: <120.aafb080.298b858d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a3eona+u5c0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34471

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., mrgrrrargh at a... wrote:

> -SpyGameFan (Proud non-Bush supporting American -- And I am thinking 
of doing 
> a political HP related post... conservatives beware!)

Isn't that supposed to be illegal? :-) 

Eileen




From margdean at erols.com  Fri Feb  1 19:34:49 2002
From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 14:34:49 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Why Excuse Snape"
References: <a3eg2e+4si7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C5AEDD9.D7E3D180@erols.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34472

sing2wine wrote:

> Just as Uncmark asked "Why does everyone hate Hagrid?" (..one of MY
> favorite characters...) I ask "Why is everyone trying to excuse
> Snape?" Why is everyone (even Marianne - who like me, professes to
> dislike Snape!) looking for childhood trauma and unrequited love to
> excuse Snape for ever having become a DE and for the inexcusable way
> in which he treats Harry and Neville and Hermione - and that whole
> class of Gryffindors? 

Well, think carefully.  Are the posters in question really trying
to =excuse= Snape, or are they simply trying to =understand= him
and his motivations?  There's a difference.  The first would be
saying, "I know Snape acts like an awful person, but because of
this and this and this reason, you can't really blame him 'cause
it isn't his fault."  The second is more, "Snape acts like an
awful person, but it appears he's on the Good Guys' side,
anyway.  Man, that's really interesting -- how did THAT happen? 
How does a person come to be that way?"  (The second position is
closest to mine, I'd say.)  Of course, you can ask similar
questions about any character, good or bad, and the answers are
likely to be interesting either way!

One more thing I'd like to point out is that excusing an action,
or the person who did it, is not the same as forgiving it. 
Excusing means that you find or see extenuating circumstances
that put the action in a different light so that it doesn't look
(as) bad anymore.  Forgiveness means saying, "Yes, that was an
awful thing that person did.  There was no excuse for it, it
really was bad.  However, it's in the past, I am not (any longer)
going to hold it against the person; our relationship is off to a
fresh start, beginning now."  Of course, this is only really
effective if the person you're trying to forgive is sorry for
what they did.


--Margaret Dean
  <margdean at erols.com>



From feycat at feycat.net  Fri Feb  1 19:50:21 2002
From: feycat at feycat.net (Gabriel Edson)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:50:21 -0500
Subject: Animagus thoughts (RATS!) / SHIP RH / TR vs LV
References: <a3ejcl+17qu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001001c1ab59$b0c4a180$0b01a8c0@enet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34473

>>Peter seems pathetic, but is quite dangerous, especially when cornered.  He is a rat (a very apt animagus form) - 
sneaky, devious, always looking out for number one, and if you push him too far he will bite.<<

Okay, I've been keeping quiet on this whole thing, but I've got to react to this. I'm a pet rat breeder, and as such have done ENORMOUS amounts of research on both domestic and wild rats, and this whole thing is a bunch of unfortunate and untrue sterotyping. Rats are highly social, very intelligent, loving animals. They live in groups, will sacrifice themselves for the good of the colony, and mourn their dead. They are wonderful parents, and they are one of the VERY few rodents who can be kept with males together in a cage who don't kill each other... male rats form very tight social bonds, as do females. Parent-child bonds are the strongest, and even the males make great parents. Also, rats almost NEVER bite. You have to really hurt, scare or corner one to get it to bite you. I was thrilled when Scabbers showed up in the first book. Good press for pet rats, YAY!

Then PoA came along. *sigh*
----------------------------------------------------
BTW, does anyone else wonder why Remus never attacked James while in Animagus form? Isn't a deer the natural prey of a wolf? It always seemed very strange to me. 
----------------------------------------------------
On SHIPping...

I personally prefer H/H, but I believe in my heart of hearts that JKR is setting up H/R, H/G. People like to toss around the fact that R/H'ers aren't respecting what Hermione wants, since most of what gets cited in SHIPping arguements is from GoF. However, GoF is just where RON notices HERMIONE in an obvious way. However, you have to look back to PoA for Hermione's interest in Ron. Now, I don't have my copy on my (at work) so please excuse me for paraphrasing.

When Ron and Harry were angry at Hermione, she is MUCH more upset about Ron being angry than Harry. When Harry forgives her (after he gets his broomstick back) and invites her to join the Quiddich win party, she gets hysterical and points at RON.

"HE doesn't want me to!"

When Ron confirms this, she runs away crying. It doesn't really seem to matter much to her that HARRY has forgiven her and is okay with her again. It's RON'S good opinion she wants.

For what it's worth, I do think that the post-Yule Ball yelling match was Hermione telling Ron he should invite her out BECAUSE she actually wants him to. She's not a devious girl, and would never invite his attention if she didn't want it. I think it probably really hurt her feelings when he "noticed" she's a girl, but while in PoA she was much more immature and ran away crying, in GoF she got angry. Remember, girls are a year or so ahead of boys emotionally at that age.

That's my theory.
---------------------------------------------

I asked this once before, but no one answered: Why does Dumbledore, in the very beginning of the first book, insist that "Lord Voldemort's" name be spoken, and that things should be called by their proper name... why doesn't he call LV "Tom Riddle" then? He's one of the "few people" who know that TR is LV. Why is that? Why is it a secret?


Gabriel
Pack House Quidditch Team Keeper
"Twitchy little ferret, aren't you Malfoy?"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested in reading and critiquing a fantasy novel-in-progress? 
I'm looking for intelligent, critical thinkers who love to read!
Teaser: http://www.fetcat.net/unseen_sample.html 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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




From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Fri Feb  1 20:26:56 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 20:26:56 -0000
Subject: TR vs LV
In-Reply-To: <001001c1ab59$b0c4a180$0b01a8c0@enet.com>
Message-ID: <a3etmg+bauk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34474

> 
> I asked this once before, but no one answered: Why does Dumbledore,
in the very beginning of the first book, insist that "Lord
Voldemort's" name be spoken, and that things should be called by their
proper name... why doesn't he call LV "Tom Riddle" then? He's one of
the "few people" who know that TR is LV. Why is that? Why is it a secret?
> 
> 
> Gabriel


I reckon he insists that Voldemort's name be spoken because everyone
deliberatly avoids it (everyone but Harry, Sirius, and Remus, that
is). He doesn't want Harry to get into the same bad habit of cringing
at the mere mention of his name.  He suspects that someday Voldemort
will be back, and it's important that people not be overwhelmed by
fear, because they'll need to fight him.

As for why he doesn't refer to him as Tom Riddle, I suspect that it's
because Tom Riddle essentially no longer exists.  Tom went through
extensive transformations in his quest to become immortal, and IIRC he
returned from his quest unrecognizable.  To call him Tom would be to
ignore the monster Voldemort is.  Besides, Tom, the "perfect" student,
was a lie: Tom was the facade, Voldemort the true nature.

--Dicentra, who doesn't know why it should be a secret, either  




From marybear82 at yahoo.com  Fri Feb  1 20:43:37 2002
From: marybear82 at yahoo.com (Mary Shearer)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:43:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] About Ron (not shipping)
In-Reply-To: <a3eds8+gjji@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020201204337.33729.qmail@web14007.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34475


Mercia wrote:
 Much
> though I hated the 
> thought I began to wonder if Ron could eventually
> become so 
> embittered by his circumstances and these slight
> character flaws that 
> he would turn to the dark. It's sort of what he
> fears for Fred and 
> George in GoF when he thinks they have become so
> obsessed by money 
> and that could be either a sign that he himself will
> have the 
> strength to resist or a dramatic irony preceding his
> own fall. I 
> really, really don't want to think this, but it
> would make for some 
> very profound strands in the story and could be the
> sort of area JKR 
> wants to explore. She does have a way of reversing
> all previous 
> expectations. 

I've wondered too if Ron is headed for trouble.  Ron
is so impetuous, and his bitter moments are always
unexpected and quite jarring.  You're right - he does
voice his concern for George and Fred - and for Percy
as well, saying that he's not sure family ties are
strong enough to stand in the way of Percy's ambition.
I'm not sure where comments like that are leading, but
they have to be more than just throwaways. Perhaps his
worry about his brothers' strength of character is
reflective of his concern for his own.  This, it seems
to me, would speak volumes about Ron's personal
integrity.  Not one to be given over to
self-introspection, Ron's fear for his brothers might
just be (an unconscious) fear for himself.  He is
pretty pensive after that conversation about Fred and
George...he doesn't like what he sees, and that's
encouraging.

Ron's emotions are almost always right at the surface,
and he usually voices them honestly - positive or
negative, you always know where you stand with Ron. If
he becomes suddenly withdrawn or overly surly, red
flags should go up for his friends. However, Harry the
not-so-great communicator may miss the chance to bail
his friend out before he hits the downward spiral, and
I suppose that Ron's weaknesses could be exploited at
that point. 

For what it's worth, I don't think Ron will succumb to
evil as Peter did - but I do think that he will be
given the opportunity. We may go right to the wire
thinking that history will repeat itself ala
Pettigrew, but I think that in the end, (given that
things play out this way - who knows?) Ron will
survive his crisis of the spirit and emerge stronger
and surer of himself - perhaps a hero in his own right
rather than an admirer or a sidekick, and take his
place at Harry's side instead of in his shadow.

-Mary, who's got herself worked up into a proper
frenzy over poor Ron...that fifth book better come out
soon before I implode.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com



From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Fri Feb  1 20:49:56 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 20:49:56 -0000
Subject: About Ron (not shipping)
In-Reply-To: <a3ejt4+p70g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3ev1k+jt5q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34476

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "meglet2" <mercia at i...> wrote:
> > I had a scarily nasty thought about Ron this morning. Into my mind, 
> > when I wasn't even thinking about HP, flitted the number of times 
> we 
> > hear Ron's resentment about his family's poverty. 'I hate being 
> poor' 
> > sort of thing. I started to wonder if these could be hints of 
> > a 'fatal flaw' that could render him corruptible, particularly when 
> > added to his unrecognised jealousy (unrecognised by himself that 
> is) 
> > of Harry and his fame, and his psychological need (revealed in the 
> > mirror or Erised) to gain status in his own right. 
> 
> ARGGGHHHH! As I confessed to the board a while ago, I get very touchy 
> over this argument, b/c I have a lot in common with Ron in character, 
> situation, and family. No, he's not going to go evil! :-)
> 
> > So go on, folks, please, please prove me wrong.

Sorry, can't *prove* you wrong, but I can offer a different theory.  I
agree, Ron's vulnerability with being poor and unappreciated must be a
deliberate setup for later things.  He probably won't go bad like
Pettigrew (I very much hope he won't), but I can see him being sorely
tempted to do something that doesn't seem "that bad" so he can get
money or recognition.  

I can see someone from Voldemort's side trying to get to Harry through
Ron by offering Ron something he wants in exchange for a little
information. "We're not going to hurt him, we just want to talk to
him, that's all," the Voldemort supporter might say.  

I can also see poor Ron giving in, thinking that what he's doing won't
matter so much, or that Harry can handle himself, or whatever, and
then having it go WAY wrong.  And like Judas, he then finds himself
throwing the 30 pieces of silver against the door and cursing those
who got him involved.  It would also drive a huge wedge between Ron
and Harry, at least for awhile, or Ron might run from Harry's side out
of extreme guilt.  I also wonder if Hermione is vulnerable.  I'll have
to think about that.

--Dicentra, who, now that it's been brought up, greatly fears for Ron 




From Jefrigo21 at aol.com  Fri Feb  1 21:12:05 2002
From: Jefrigo21 at aol.com (Jefrigo21 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 16:12:05 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] US/UK Versions
Message-ID: <102.fe388ba.298c5ea5@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34477

I would like to know why the 'American' Editors did not put in some kind of dictionary in. It will be a good thing and some people might pick up on LEARNING about different cultures. There are somehings I did not know, and know them now.  But, kids do ask about words or meaings they don't understand. 

I have read a lot of books, and I have asked questions about things I did not understand. Some Americans are more observant than others.  The same goes for a lot of other cultures, wether it is in the States or the UK. I would like to see a sort of dictionary in the books, so people can learn....

Joanna ( An American college student who wants to live outside of the USA, to get experience and learn another than the American way of thinking)



From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Fri Feb  1 20:22:21 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 20:22:21 -0000
Subject: TR vs LV
In-Reply-To: <001001c1ab59$b0c4a180$0b01a8c0@enet.com>
Message-ID: <a3etdt+2tsf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34478

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Gabriel Edson" <feycat at f...> wrote:

> I asked this once before, but no one answered: Why does Dumbledore,
in the very beginning of the first book, insist that "Lord
Voldemort's" name be spoken, and that things should be called by their
proper name... why doesn't he call LV "Tom Riddle" then? He's one of
the "few people" who know that TR is LV. Why is that? Why is it a
secret?
> 

I don't think is so much a secret as that most people just never
bothered to find out who LV might've been as a boy -- they're too busy
being terrified of what he is now.  And I think that's also why
Dumbledore insists on saying "Voldemort" rather than "Riddle."  Riddle
isn't the name that people are afraid off.  Dumbledore wants everyone
to say the name they're afraid off in order to dispel the fear.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com






From devin.smither at yale.edu  Fri Feb  1 20:43:06 2002
From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 20:43:06 -0000
Subject: Future Books/ Final  Showdown/Role of Magical Creatures/Non-Characters/Who will die?
In-Reply-To: <20020201024129.44547.qmail@web20408.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a3eukq+k9dm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34479

  > Cindysphynx wrote:
> >In my opinion, the pattern of the first four books is
> >that the Voldemort confrontations become more
> >believable and suspenseful as we move along. In other
> >words, I liked the graveyard confrontation 
> >better than the chamber confrontation better than the
> >PS/SS confrontation. Frankly, I don't see how JKR can
> >top the graveyard scene with anything other than the
> >final confrontation. So I kind of hope (and predict)
> >we'll get conflict between members of Voldemort's 
> >team and Dumbledore's team, but no Harry/Voldemort
> >smackdown until Book 7. 

Ah, good point.  I've been thinking (I started this post) that people 
are possibly right that Book 7 probably needs to be the only 
remaining with a Harry/Voldemort finale.  Originally, I plumped for 
two more.  This because I think Harry needs to see someone die saving 
him from Voldemort and deal with that.  However, I can see someone 
else attempting to kill Harry in a finale (more on who that could be 
later) and whoever (Hagrid?--I'm not fond of the idea, I really love 
Hagrid) taking the "bullet" instead.  I also think that such a fight 
might fulfill a point where Harry and SOMEONE fight an evil force 
together.  I just think some finale or another needs to have another 
good presence there.  It's all fine and good to talk about Harry's 
destiny, but I think JKR is stretching if EVERY other finale (the PoA 
finale did indeed include Hermione, perhaps she or Ron will stand 
with Harry once again) comes down to only Harry.  This, of course, 
does not include the H/V showdown in Seven where it's only right that 
the two of them fight one-on-one.  Also interesting to note the idea 
(I'm sorry I don't remember who mentioned it) that it's very 
symmetrical and RIGHT if Harry faces Voldemort in 1, 4, and 7.  
Somehow, this really does make sense to me.  I still want to know 
about Voldemort's past, however, even if we don't see him, to know 
his motivations and such, make him a more rounded-out, less one-
dimensional villain.

And ladjables wrote:
 
> Agreed, and excellent prediction, Trelawney would be
> green with envy.  I think uncmark cleverly suggested
> that the final showdown between Voldemort and Harry
> take place at Godric's Hollow(perhaps on the ruins of
> the Potters' old home?).  This would be really neat
> since it would give the books a circular trajectory,
> beginning and ending at Harry's first home.  And you
> can't ask for a more emotionally charged face-off 
> than that.

Not meaning (too much) to preen my own feathers, but I did, in fact, 
come up with that prediction (of course, uncmark may have done it 
sooner than me, in which case, I apologize, but I did come up with 
the thought on my own, not having read it anywhere else).  And I 
think it does make sense that it all comes full-circle (Rowling does 
have kind of a running motif there, I believe).  It also is a 
convenient way to top the high emotional stirrings of the graveyard 
confrontation.  The possibility of Harry taking down Voldemort in the 
very place where Voldemort robbed him of a happy childhood and thrust 
him into a hard and dangerous destiny will create a pulse-pounding 
read, I believe.  Yes, I think any Voldemort/Harry fight will not top 
the graveyard one until Book Seven, and setting it in Godric's Hollow 
is one variable that would help it to be the true climax.

> I also think you raise a really good point regarding a
> shift in focus from Harry/Voldemort, who are at the 
> epicentre of the story, to peripheral conflict in
> Books 5 and 6.  
> 
> And what about Norbert?!  I can't be the only weirdo
> who thinks his introduction in SS was no throwaway
> chapter?  Mark my words, Norbert will be someone's
> saviour.  He'll remember Hagrid,
> Aragog did!  Okay, I'm undermining my point here, but
> I think there's alot of fodder for OotP and Book 6. 

I think OotP is, in some ways, going to be a fall in action 
comparatively speaking.  Rowling pulled the string VERY tight in GoF, 
and I think she needs one book to settle us down before she pushes us 
up to the brink.  Not that it will be dull, or it's action not 
engaging, but just a breather before the real stuff is poured on.  I 
could be wrong about this, but it feels right to me.  Oooooh, good 
intuition about Norbert.  I hadn't even thought about that 
possibility.  I'm definitely with you on that one.  Especially good 
point about Aragog's remembrance of Hagrid and the possible Norbert 
connection therein.  Beautiful.  Yes, I'm sure Norbert will be back.

Incidentally, I fervently hope that
> Mrs. Lestrange is unrepentantly evil, that her soul is
> a festering sore, that she hisses when she speaks,
> that her eyes glow when she's mad, okay, I hope she's
> really, really bad.  Because, then she can be a worthy
> adversary for  McGonagall, who will FINALLY get to
> flex her magic muscles when she challenges Mrs.
> Lestrange to a witchly joust.  How's that for an OotP
> climax?  No Voldemort, no Harry, and the women show
> what they're made of! 

Now THAT'S a great idea.  I can't see it as THE climax, however.  I 
think Harry does have to be involved, one way or another in the big 
fight of each book.  Speaking of which, I vote Mrs. Lestrange as a 
spectacularly possible candidate for Harry to fight in the end of 
Six.  I can certainly imagine her as the killer of whoever steps in 
front of the spell to save Harry, and her hissing and spitting in the 
final fight would be very, very good.  That said, I'm going to love 
seeing some of the match-ups that have to happen.  
Lestrange/McGonagall (I desire very highly that McGonagall duel with 
someone), Lupin/Pettigrew, Malfoy/Weasley, Moody/Avery, 
Snape/Karkaroff, Dumbledore/anyone, etc.  Of course, some of these 
are pretty random match-ups, but I really want to see some really 
good fights go down here.

And Cindy signed:
 
> >Cindy (starting to sweat bullets because it is almost
> >February and we don't have an OoP release date)

Heavily agreed.  *cracks whip*  Write, Rowling, WRITE!

Devin





From siskiou at earthlink.net  Fri Feb  1 21:15:45 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:15:45 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: About Ron (not shipping)
In-Reply-To: <a3ev1k+jt5q@eGroups.com>
References: <a3ev1k+jt5q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <142186581949.20020201131545@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34480



Hi,

Friday, February 01, 2002, 12:49:56 PM, dicentra_spectabilis_alba wrote:

> --Dicentra, who, now that it's been brought up, greatly fears for Ron 

Hm, maybe I should have waited until all 7 books were
written, before becoming involved :}

Ron is my favorite character, and after reading all the
theories about who might die, I'm very worried.

I don't think Ron would permanently go over to the dark
side, but he might be sorely tempted, and then feel very
guilty for doing so.

Btw, having not read all the books, yet: has Harry ever
offered to help Ron out, financially?
Buying him something he knows Ron wants?
And if yes, what was Ron's reaction?

Also, another thing I've wondered about: Ron uses a
"hand-me-down wand in the first 2 books. How does this
influence his studies?

As we have seen when Harry gets his wand, things can go
quite wrong, if the wand isn't right for the wizard.

If all this has been discussed to death, already, I
apologize.
I've only made it through a few thousand old messages, yet.

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





From gwynyth at drizzle.com  Fri Feb  1 21:29:34 2002
From: gwynyth at drizzle.com (Jenett)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:29:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] US/UK Versions
In-Reply-To: <102.fe388ba.298c5ea5@aol.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0202011317060.14133-100000@drizzle.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34481

On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 Jefrigo21 at aol.com wrote:

> I would like to know why the 'American' Editors did not put in some kind
> of dictionary in. It will be a good thing and some people might pick up
> on LEARNING about different cultures. There are somehings I did not
> know, and know them now.  But, kids do ask about words or meaings they
> don't understand.

A couple of things worth bearing in mind, I think:

1) Scholastic wasn't really *used* to doing this kind of trans-Atlantic 
work. 

I'm American, but my father was English, and my mother grew up in 
Great Britain. Most of the 'British' books we had came directly from 
England (my father made a trip back every year to see friends, and I 
always gave him a requested book list, plus he'd bring back anything 
friends recommended I read) 

The few exceptions were *not* from children's publishers, mostly, (at 
least not in the realm of Scholastic) but were people like Penguin/Puffin. 
(I know my Swallows and Amazons/Railway Children/E. Nesbit editions are 
all one of the two.) 

At the time, you really couldn't get a lot of conventional British
children's books (especially school stories and Enid Blyton and such) in
the US (At least in the northeast, wehre I'd expect it to be possible if
it was anywhere) This would have been in the late 70s and 80s. I know - my
parents tried, because I kept wanting more of them.

2) No one quite expected the books to be this popular originally. Or that 
they'd be read by such a wide age range so enthusiastically. 

They'd market quite well to Scholastic audiences (except for the length, 
which is a bit long for what a lot of people think that demographic 
audience would read) but that demographic range isn't one where (according 
to conventional theories) you want to put any more barriers in front of 
the reader than necessary. (And from one point of view, you already have 
the length barrier...)

I, I should note, disagree strongly with this theory - but I'm not a 
publisher of children's literature in the US. 

3) US Publishers seem to be a bit wary in general about forcing the reader 
to do too much work, at least in fiction. 

This is more true in children's 
fiction, I think, than in other genres, but you still see it in, say, 
science fiction - if you have to have a glossary or a cast of characters 
list so people can keep things straight, you're almost guaranteed that 
someone will say the book is too complex. 

Again, I disagree with this take on the publishers (note how well
Tolkien's works have been selling recently, and they are *not* simple,
either as far as context or language use) but again, I'm not a publisher
and no one's asked my opinion. (And in all fairness, there are fiction
publishers who assume their readers have brains and are willing to make 
use of them even while reading fiction.) 

-Jenett




From hollydaze at btinternet.com  Fri Feb  1 22:11:51 2002
From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 22:11:51 -0000
Subject: Rita as a DE / Dumbledore's Flaw's / V and H / Book Title / The Good Guys / Wizard Insults / class code / etc
References: <Springmail.105.1012277226.0.61543900@www.springmail.com>
Message-ID: <044e01c1ab6d$9b8d53c0$1d0e073e@j0dhe>

No: HPFGUIDX 34482

Sorry it's all in one but I'm replying to the last weeks worth of posts and don't want to have loads in a row all from me!

RITA AS A DE.
Porphyria wrote:
<SNIP>
> Does anyone but me wonder if Rita Skeeter will wind up delivering 
> information to Voldemort -- wittingly or unwittingly? 
> She's be a good candidate for some Imperius duty.
<SNIP>

I don't know about that but she could well let the MOM/Public know that Sirius is an Animagus! Hermione only caught her in the hospital wing after they had seen Sirius transform into a dog, and i should think that Rita (being a reporter) would know immediately who Sirius was and even if Hermione has told her not to write for a year, that would not stop her reporting Sirius to the MOM, or telling the public once that year is up.

I sure this must have been discussed before but I haven't so far found anything in the FAQ essays, I'll try the archives but I'm not really sure what to type in.

Charis Julia wrote:
<SNIP>
> And then there's Rita Skeeter. Wonderful caricature of the 
> ruthless reporter though she is, I don't think that is all the role 
> she serves in the series. Her career might have come to a standstill 
> courtesies of Hermione but her articles cannot be forgotten so 
> easily, especially the last one on Harry. So Dumbledore & Co are 
> facing not only the expected and normal prejudice against them but 
> one heightened by Rita's slander.
<SNIP>
And don't forget that she could be back and writing by book six (as well as revealing Sirius as a big dog!)

FLAWS OF DUMBLEDORE
Cindy wrote:
> > I do wish JKR had provided some reason why Dumbledore doesn't get a > > chance to ask this question, however.  Crouch could lose 
> > consciousness or any number of things to cut off the questioning.  
> > As it stands, I am left with the idea that Dumbledore forgot to ask 
> > about accomplices or thinks it unimportant.

Amy wrote:
> He's leaving a lot of the questioning up to Crouch--talk about bad 
> moves.  I wonder if he is motivated by a desire to get Harry to the 
> hospital.  He keeps him up long enough listening to Crouch and telling 
> his own version as it is.  D's going to stay up all night dealing with 
> this stuff, but he doesn't want to make Harry do it.

Remember that he thinks he will be able to come back and question Crouch Jr later (with Fudge present). He may know of a lot more questions he wishes to ask (hence he asks McGonagall and Snape to keep an eye on him) while he goes to question Harry. He may have planned to take Harry to the hospital wing then continue questioning Crouch Jr.

VOLDEMORT AND HARRY CONFRONTATIONS.
Devin asked if people thought that H and V would meet in future books and what would happen.


I personally think that if JK does have H and V meeting in each of the next three books, then it will be a bit of a "cop out". It would make the books stick too strictly to the pattern they have followed in the past. One of the main reasons I like book three (it's my fav) is that it does not have a VH confrontation in it. It would add variety into the books.

I have to disagree with those who say Harry must get rid of LV on his own. I hope that in at least one of the H/V confrontations (preferably the last one) will not just be H/V fighting one another, but that Hermione, Ron, Sirius, Lupin, Dumbledore, some of those people will be present and fighting V and the DEs. I want the downfall of Voldemort to be Love, Trust, Loyalty, Friendship etc because so far it is ALWAYS H verses V and no one else (I don't count the DEs in the last one, they didn't do anything). Ok it is Friendship that gets Harry to V in the first book and his mum's love that protects him. In the second book it is Harry's loyalty to Dumbledore. But what is the fourth book. I just wish it wasn't always those two and only those two. That some other people would be present and actually representing Love, Trust etc in human form.

Obviously I want it to be Harry who defeats LV but not so obviously as it has been before. I want him to do it with the visible support of his friends. I just see it that there is this emphasis of good, love, trust loyalty etc in the main part of the books but that it doesn't come out other than in a subtle way in the final confrontations. I suppose I want it to be visible so that Voldemort knows, in the instant before he dies what it is that killed him, that it is staring him right in the face, the one thing he refused to believe in and he can't avoid it any more, LOVE. That it is not a mechanical thing  (which as someone else has stated before appears to be how LV sees it), but a feeling that people have and that people survive on, that people can share together and that it is these none physical things that protect people and form bonds between them.

Does that make any sense or am I just being stupid and missing the point of something key to the books?

Ama wrote:
> I think uncmark cleverly suggested
> that the final showdown between Voldemort and Harry
> take place at Godric's Hollow(perhaps on the ruins of
> the Potters' old home?).  This would be really neat
> since it would give the books a circular trajectory,
> beginning and ending at Harry's first home.  And you
> can't ask for a more emotionally charged face-off 
> than that.

I can't remember who now, but about a month ago someone suggested that the books might go full circle and that the main confrontation in the whole books, may not actually be the one where Harry defeats Voldemort the second time, but the one where Harry "temporarily demobilises" LV, his first confrontation as a Baby. That would be the final confrontation of the books. I don't know quite how it would work (would you like to re post your original message or explain more your idea -sorry I can't remember who you are) but I really like that idea two (as long as it is coupled with the "Love is the downfall of LV" theory presented above - An acronym? Tabouli any ideas?)

BOOK TITLE
Devin wrote:
> What about in the "Fortress of Shadows", that title that's been 
> copyrighted recently?  
Sorry, not sure what you talking about? Can you explain please?

THE GOOD GUYS

Mahoney wrote:
<SNIP>
- normal, respectable, level-headed, if slightly uptight, McGonagall
- normal, respectable Mr. & Mrs. Weasley
- nasty, ill-tempered, probable-ex-DE Snape
- hot-headed, possibly suffering from PTSD due to incarceration in 
Azkaban Black
- secretive werewolf but otherwise normal and very dependable Lupin
- off his rocker and also possibly PTSD afflicted due to 
incarceration in a travel trunk Moody
- whiney, spastic, goofy, loyal to an often serious fault Hagrid
- crotchety, sneaky, weird Mundungus Fletcher
- three talented but admittedly young and barely-trained students
- a phoenix
and
- Arabella Figg, about whom all we know is that she was obsessed with 
cats until she supposedly tripped over one and broke her leg, and 
possibly kept an eye on Harry
<SNIP>

I was just wondering, does anyone else think that Dedelus Diggle would fit perfectly in this group of people? I just think it was odd how many times he got mentioned in the first book in the celebrations and then met Harry in the Leaky Cauldron (plus was one of the people who bowed to him)

Since we have found out the Mrs Figg who was mentioned about three times in the first book and once (I think) in the second, and also Mundungus, who was mentioned as trying to hex Mr Weasley when his back was turned and then claiming for a tent with any number of luxuries were members of the old crowd. And even Sirius was mentioned in the first book. Does anyone find it likely that someone who sends off shooting star in Kent (an English country like Sussex - were Harry lives) and bows to Harry potter, would fit in very well? He also seems to fit the "mention but don't give anything away" idea that happened with the other three. He's been mentioned, by name quite a few times but hasn't (as yet) featured in anything. McGongall and Dumbledore seem to know him because they were the people talking about him setting off shooting stars. AM I just looking for connections where there aren't any?

Cindy wrote:
<SNIP>
> --law-abiding, rule-following smart Percy Weasley.
<SNIP>
--a kneazle.

Hate to be picky, but I think Crookshanks is only part Kneazle. I'm pretty certain JK said that in an interview and even if she didn't, he can't be whole Kneazle because he still looks enough like a normal cat for Hermione (who would have read about them), Ron (who seems to know quite a bit about magical creatures) and Hagrid (who knows a lot about none-dangerous magic creatures but doesn't like to admit it) not to realise that he is a Kneazle and point it out. Also the physical description in MBWFT doesn't quite fit with the physical description of Crookshanks. He ahs the busy tail and the Flat face but I think it would have been pointed out if he was striped or spotted, as far as we know he is like a ginger tabby cat, he has strips but they are not "abnormally magical" (if that makes sense?) plus Hermione would have needed a license for a proper Kneazle and she doesn't for Crookshanks (or she'd have been in trouble with the MoM by know!)

We also don't know for certain that Percy is on the good guys side. I feel there has been a lot of foreshadowing that Percy will side with Fudge, especially in book 4, with all the talk about, not knowing a joke and turning the twins in if it would further his career, and this from Ron who should know him pretty well! 
Don't get me wrong, I think Percy is alright and will pick the right side in the end, I definitely don't think he will intentionally side with LV but I do think he will ignore the threat for the fifth book at least.

Cindy wrote:
> Moody squeamish about killing people?  No way.  Moody would stand 
> over the corpse cursing him, his ancestors and his descendants. 

I don't think he would actually. Sirius states when talking to Harry about how Crouch made it so Aurors could kill, that Moody always brought people in alive if he could. He may not be squeamish about killing but I don't think he would be involved in it unless he was forced. 

MUDBLOOD/HALFBLOOD/PUREBLOOD/SQUIB

My personal Definitions:

Pure Blood: Someone with no Muggles/Squibs in the DIRECT family line (Aunts and Uncles don't count - only parents, grand parents, great grand parents etc and DIRECT blood relatives in a straight line back from you)

Half Blood: Someone with a Muggle/Squib in the Direct family line (see above).

Mudblood: A magic person born of at least one muggle parent.

Squib: A none magic person born of two magical parents (that is the definition that Ron gives). 

Therefore someone born a non magic person with two squib parents, would be classed as a Muggle while someone born with magic powers would probably be a classed mudblood.
If it is one Wizard and a Squib, I think they would just be a muggle, just as if you had one muggle and a wizard who had a child. 

I also think it would be very unlikely that you would get two squibs marrying as Ron says that they are vary rare.


CLASS CODE
Eloise wrote:
<SNIP>
The key, I think, is Seamus Finnigan.  He 
said in PS/SS that his dad is a muggle and his mom is a witch.  
Seamus's symbol is a star which is circled, and then 1/2 of the 
circle is made into star.  1/2 a star; 1/2 magical parentage.
<SNIP>

It isn't turned into a star, the circle has been crossed out. There is a scribble through the circle (round the edge) that does not cross out the star in the middle. It has rounded points, not straight ones like the other stars. It is more like she... scribbled, is a better word, out the circle. The big question is that thickly draw upside down pentagram!!

TYPICALLY "BRITISH" CHARACTERS.

Quoted from a reply, so not sure who originally said it:
> Anyway, what I loved most about the book was the fact that 
> it was  British.  In some cases, I had to laugh because the characters
> seemed so, so, British! 

Being British myself, I don't really know what would count as "typically" British/English because I don't see the stereotypes in the same way. Could you please explain which characters you are referring to and why they are "typically British" because I am rather interested (and scared that I may end up being classed as Typically British if I ever go to the US again! - One person (American) managed to work out I (and my school) was English just from looking at me!!!!)

> just to prove that British people can also be ignorant about other 
> cultures, what's a jumper in North America??
A pinafore/dress type thing (that's the best way i can think to describe it with out calling it an American Jumper)

OT:
Chappnee said that he/she gets very annoyed when people refer to people from the US as Americans when strictly anyone form North America is America. I was just wondering what we should call them then? USAns :) Uniteds? 

GOBLINS SIDE WITH LV?

Ama wrote:
> magical creatures and beings...Who will they side with?  
> We already know the Dementors will be on Voldemort's 
> side, possibly the goblins and trolls.  

What will happen to all the Money in Gringotts if the Goblins join LV?
And is there any evidence that they will. All the Goblin rebellions seem to have happened quite a while ago, they do not appear to have been connected with LV's first reign, although I could be wrong, that is how I always read it!

BRITISH VS ENGLISH
Eloise wrote:
> This whole discussion should be under the banner US/British versions. 
> After all, they are both written in English, aren't they and it is 
> extremely irritating to Scottish, Welsh and Irish Britons to be 
> thought of as English. 

I always got the impression that (most) Scots, Welsh and Irish hated being called British too and that was what devolution was about?

I presumed we were talking about the language rather than the countries anyway and in those ways it is right as the British version is written in *English* while the "American" version is in US English (hence US in the title of the discussion)


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




From ramjhb112 at yahoo.com  Fri Feb  1 22:21:37 2002
From: ramjhb112 at yahoo.com (ryan houck)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:21:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: unsubscrice
In-Reply-To: <1012587229.3075.68425.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020201222137.89044.qmail@web10607.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34483


--- HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________
> 
> Before posting to any list, you MUST read the
> group's Admin Files!
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/
> 
> Remember to use accurate subject headings and to
> snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're
> replying!
> 
> Is your message...
> An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it
> to HPFGU-Announcements.
> Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
> Referencing *only* the books? Send it to
> HPforGrownups.
> None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
> Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf
> or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com
> 
> Unsubscribing? Email
> hpforgrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
____________________________________________________________
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> There are 25 messages in this issue.
> 
> Topics in this digest:
> 
>       1. ADMIN: Touchy subjects
>            From: "Amy Z" <aiz24 at hotmail.com>
>       2. Scarred Sirius - Out-of-character - Remus
> Esq. - Humor - Doomed Hagrid
>            From: "Amy Z" <aiz24 at hotmail.com>
>       3. Re: Re: US/English Versions
>            From: "Lucy Austin" <lucy at luphen.co.uk>
>       4. Re: Re: Jumper
>            From: Whirdy at aol.com
>       5. Re: Jumper
>            From: "joanne0012" <Joanne0012 at aol.com>
>       6. Re: Paranoia
>            From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com
>       7. Re: Imperius & Religion
>            From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com
>       8. Re: Re: Snape mentioning Peter
>            From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com
>       9. Re:Sirius and Snape frozen in time
> (WasSirius' Prank & Lupin )
>            From: "gypaetus16"
> <elfriede.schaden at chello.at>
>      10. Re: Confusion with my Last Post about
> US/English Versions
>            From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com
>      11. Re: Wizard Therapy (was Snape frozen in
> time)
>            From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com
>      12. Re: name meanings - Neville
>            From: "nb100uk"
> <nina.baker at uk.faulding.com>
>      13. Re: Snape (what else?), branching off a
> Sirius discussion
>            From: "Jo Jackson"
> <jo.jackson at bigpond.com>
>      14. Re: Re: Sirius and Snape/ US/English
> versions
>            From: Edblanning at aol.com
>      15. Re: Re: Jumper
>            From: Whirdy at aol.com
>      16. Dumbledore's judgement(Was Re: Snape
> mentioning Peter)
>            From: "marinafrants"
> <rusalka at ix.netcom.com>
>      17. Re: Sirius and Snape/ US/English versions
>            From: "marinafrants"
> <rusalka at ix.netcom.com>
>      18. About Ron (not shipping)
>            From: "meglet2" <mercia at ireland.com>
>      19. Re: Dumbledore's judgement(Was Re: Snape
> mentioning Peter)
>            From: Jenett <gwynyth at drizzle.com>
>      20. Re: US/English Versions
>            From: "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at yahoo.ca>
>      21. Re: About Ron (not shipping)
>            From: "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at yahoo.ca>
>      22. Re: Harry classmates "code"
>            From: "jklb66" <jklb66 at yahoo.com>
>      23. In Defense of Jewish Ravenclaws & "Why
> Excuse Snape"
>            From: "sing2wine"
> <bonnie.abrams at cwine.com>
>      24. Re: OT: Can there be Magic?
>            From: "uilnslcoap"
> <devin.smither at yale.edu>
>      25. Re: The Pop-Psychology of Peter and
> Animagus Thoughts
>            From: "abigailnus" <abigailnus at yahoo.com>
> 
> 
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Message: 1
>    Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 05:17:35 -0500
>    From: "Amy Z" <aiz24 at hotmail.com>
> Subject: ADMIN: Touchy subjects
> 
> Dear HPfGUers,
> 
> Religion, politics, and cultural differences are all
> acceptable topics per 
> se, but please be sensitive to the fact that we do
> not all share the same 
> views on these issues.  It is asking for a flame war
> when one makes 
> generalizations about a particular ethnicity, opines
> about the desirability 
> of religion becoming more or less dominant in real
> life, or comments 
> approvingly or disapprovingly on a current head of
> state of a real-life 
> country (Fudge-bashing is fine, of course).
> 
> Please tread with care; we are all grownups and
> capable of expressing our 
> ideas without being insulting or dismissive--right?
> <sweet, patronizing 
> smile>.  If not, there's plenty of dragon dung in
> the Magical Storeroom 
> ready to be boxed and sent.  ;-)
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Amy Z
> Magical Moderator
> 
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
> http://messenger.msn.com
> 
> 
> 
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Message: 2
>    Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 05:29:53 -0500
>    From: "Amy Z" <aiz24 at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Scarred Sirius - Out-of-character - Remus
> Esq. - Humor - Doomed Hagrid
> 
> Cindy wrote:
> 
> >you probably see Sirius as a 30-year old man who
> should have
> >developed the maturity to acknowledge his
> culpability for what he did
> >to Snape.
> 
> >I don't.  When it comes to maturity and personal
> growth, Sirius is
> >frozen in time, in suspended animation, really. 
> He's a walking case
> >of arrested development.  Still stewing over
> decade-old grudges,
> >showing no more emotional maturity or growth than
> the day he left
> >Hogwarts.  Still smirking about Snape's greasy hair
> like a pre-
> >adolescent, locked in the same old tired battles.
> 
> >And why is that?  Well, he's been locked up for 12
> years.  It is hard
> >to manage much personal growth when one is lying on
> the floor of a
> >cell in solitary confinement.
> 
> My thoughts exactly--except that it's much, much
> worse than 12 years of 
> solitary <shudders, trying to imagine such a thing>.
>  It's been 12 years of 
> almost constantly being forced to relive the worst
> moments of his life, and 
> some of them are pretty damn bad.  I have never
> found a friend's murdered 
> body, nor had anyone threaten to set me on fire
> <never mind Elkins--*I* want 
> to hunt the little buggers down one by one>, yet
> still, being locked into my 
> worst moments of loss, fear, guilt and despair is
> one of the worst tortures 
> I can think of.  No one who had just gone through
> that is likely to be very 
> forgiving or self-reflective.
> 
> So watch out for those Lestranges etc. when they get
> out of Azkaban.
> 
> Elkins wrote:
> 
> >Tabouli's identification is canonically sanctioned
> >(presumably she does not feel that Rowling *ever*
> gets
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com



From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Fri Feb  1 22:13:40 2002
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 22:13:40 -0000
Subject: Stags and Rats, Oh My...
In-Reply-To: <001001c1ab59$b0c4a180$0b01a8c0@enet.com>
Message-ID: <a3f3uk+4rj6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34484

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Andrew MacIan <andrew_macian at y...> wrote:
> So, for James to appear as a stag is in line with
> being a *very* strong protector symbol, both for Lupin
> and his other friends, as well as for his son.

Cool, I had no idea about this- although, now that I think of it, I do seem to remember reading about a "stag-man" in a 
book some years ago, but as it was Terry Pratchett I didn't give it too much thought (I know, I know, if anybody taps 
into popular culture and mythology it's Pratchett, but a lot of his Anglo-centric stuff goes way over my head.  It was 
years before I worked out what Morris dancing was.)

I have to say that my cultural biases are still showing.  Intellectually I understand that a stag is a very powerful symbol, 
but a part of me is still going "Wait a minute!  That's *Bambi's* dad!.

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Gabriel Edson" <feycat at f...> wrote:
> >>Peter seems pathetic, but is quite dangerous, especially when cornered.  He is a rat (a very apt animagus form) - 
> sneaky, devious, always looking out for number one, and if you push him too far he will bite.<<
> 
> Okay, I've been keeping quiet on this whole thing, but I've got to react to >this. <snip information about rats>  I was thrilled when Scabbers showed up in >the first book. Good press for pet rats, YAY!

Once again, cool.  Unfortunately, your pets have had very bad press - which will happen to an animal that's a plague 
spreader - I'm pretty certain there's no misconception about that.  Regardless, the stereotype of a rat exists whether 
or not it's true about the animal itself - one of the quirks of culture, kind of like "Lead on, Macduff" and "Play it again, 
Sam" - everyone knows the lines even though they're misquoted.  So let's just say Peter Pettigrew fits the cultural     
*idea* of a rat, and not necessarily the zoological truth.

Abigail






From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Fri Feb  1 23:39:44 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 23:39:44 -0000
Subject: I've Made a Little List (filk)
Message-ID: <a3f900+gpi4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34486

I've Made A Little List (from PoA, Chap 13-14)

(To the tune of I've Got a Little List, from The Mikado)

A MIDI file is at
http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/mikado/webopera/song05a.html

Dedicated to Amy Z

NOTE: This is Neville's first solo filk on HP4GU. The long delay is 
because it's taken him so long to memorize the lyrics. 

THE SCENE: Gryffindor Common Area. Enter NEVILLE

NEVILLE
As ev'ry day it happens that the password I forget
I've made a little list, I've made a little list
An "Open Sesame" compendium to help reduce my sweat
And it's certain to assist ? it's certain to assist
There's "balderdash" and "fairy lights," "pine fresh," and "scurvy 
cur"
There's "lemon drop", "banana fritters," and also "Wattlebird"
There are sayings from the Latin, such as Caput Draconis
That I oft try to memorize, which quite mistaken is  
And phrases like "Oddsbodikins", which make my poor tongue twist
Can now be reminisced, can now be reminisced.

They're all upon my list, they're all upon my list.
And it's certain to assist ? it's certain to assist

There's that noisy painted nuisance who is always in our face
For the password he insists - but I think I lost my list


My grandma will send howlers and I'll be in deep disgrace
I'll wish not to exist - if I can not find my list
For a fugitive now prowls our grounds on wicked escapades
Though they tell me I'm courageous yet I feel quite afraid
Awakened now by screams from Ron, who cries that with a knife
The Prisoner from Azkaban tried cutting short his life.
The cause of this unpleasantness must boil down to this:
The fact I lost my list, at such cost I lost my list.

I lost my password list, I lost my password list,
Black found my little list, McGonagall is....mad

  - CMC

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





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Fri Feb  1 23:38:43 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 23:38:43 -0000
Subject: Cheating the ageline.
Message-ID: <a3f8u3+s43a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34487

I'm surprised the Hogwart's crew wasn't more creative in Goblet of 
Fire. Did anyone try anything but age potions? 

We're lucky Hermione didn't try. She could think outside the box.

IDEAS:

Could an animal familiar deliver the paper into the Goblet of Fire? 
How old exactly are Errol the owl and Crookshanks the cat?

Could a good wizard send a paper into the Goblet a levitaion charm (I 
think they were calling them 'summon' and 'banish'.)

How about a muggle-born wizard skilled at paper airplanes.

Simplest of all how about having an older wizard put the paper in for 
you. If Malfoy had as much courage as he did evil ambition, he would 
have bribed a sixth year to put his name in.

Another point, Has (A)Dunbledore been completely negligentin 
overlooking this? or (B) does Albus enjoy challenging his students to 
think around the challenge. Does he secretly hope one of his students 
will be creative enough to figure it out?

uncmark






From margdean at erols.com  Sat Feb  2 00:37:03 2002
From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 19:37:03 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Stags and Rats, Oh My...
References: <a3f3uk+4rj6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C5B34AF.F71007FF@erols.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34488

abigailnus wrote:

> I have to say that my cultural biases are still showing.  Intellectually
> I understand that a stag is a very powerful symbol, but a part of me is
> still going "Wait a minute!  That's *Bambi's* dad!.

Well, yes, and was he not the noble Lord of the Forest?  Even in
the movie IIRC -- in the book, even more so.

> Regardless, the stereotype of a rat exists whether or not it's true
> about the animal itself - one of the quirks of culture, kind of like
> "Lead on, Macduff" and "Play it again, Sam" - everyone knows the lines
> even though they're misquoted.  So let's just say Peter Pettigrew fits
> the cultural *idea* of a rat, and not necessarily the zoological truth.

Just as Remus' werewolf form (actions, temperament, etc.) is
obviously based on the cultural idea of a wolf, rather than on
the real animal.  Real Wolves Aren't Like That.


--Margaret Dean
  <margdean at erols.com>



From margdean at erols.com  Sat Feb  2 00:47:55 2002
From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 19:47:55 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: About Ron (not shipping)
References: <a3ev1k+jt5q@eGroups.com> <142186581949.20020201131545@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <3C5B373B.E96CD056@erols.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34489

Susanne wrote:
 
> Btw, having not read all the books, yet: has Harry ever
> offered to help Ron out, financially?
> Buying him something he knows Ron wants?
> And if yes, what was Ron's reaction?

Several times Harry has bought Ron gifts, and Ron gets really
uptight about it if he feels he can't reciprocate.  Harry has
also reflected several times that he'd gladly give the Weasley
family as a whole some of the money he inherited from his
parents, but he knows they wouldn't accept it.


--Margaret Dean
  <margdean at erols.com>



From muridae at muridae.co.uk  Fri Feb  1 22:11:10 2002
From: muridae at muridae.co.uk (Muridae)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 22:11:10 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] harry potter and me photos
In-Reply-To: <b6.5bd7f58.298ac2c8@aol.com>
References: <b6.5bd7f58.298ac2c8@aol.com>
Message-ID: <1kjnxiB+JxW8EwNl@muridae.co.uk>

No: HPFGUIDX 34490

Spy Game Fan wrote:

>Laoise:
>I couldn't figure that one out either. Heck, I couldn't even figure out the
>square/circle gender thing. But I hope that somebody cracks the code, and I
>hope we get to see lists from more than just Harry's year. Anyone who saw the
>special know if she showed us more than what is in the pics on the net?

As the person who took the screen captures in question, I can give you a 
definitive "no". The camera panned down and across slightly as she 
showed us that left hand page, and the three captures I uploaded cover 
the full extent of what was shown.

Sorry!

-- 
Muridae



From NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com  Sat Feb  2 00:37:24 2002
From: NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com (NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 19:37:24 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Why Excuse Snape"
Message-ID: <109.cbfcffe.298c8ec4@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34491

Because he is so DAMN sexy, thats why lol!


<<  Why is everyone (even Marianne - who like me, professes to 
dislike Snape!) looking for childhood trauma and unrequited love to 
excuse Snape for ever having become a DE and for the inexcusable way 
in which he treats Harry and Neville and Hermione - and that whole 
class of Gryffindors? >>

<<Draco is Snape's favorite student 
and Draco has certainly not shown many positive character traits yet.>>

>From what I read in the books, this is assumed.  Draco is just another 
Slytherin, so thats why he might be 'favoured'.  But I don't see examples 
that he is indeed Snapes fav. student.  I also think his 'generosity' toward 
Drace may have something to do with MR. Malfoy which will be brough up in a 
future book, as well as his as-of-yet-not-well-explained dislike for Harry.
~shahara in WI usa
(ps...just ordered the UK 4-pk paperbacks from Amazon and can't wait to 
finally read the 'original' books!  whhhheeeeee!!!!!!)

And I LOVE Hagrid...even tho I'm a diehard veggie and his diet often makes me 
ill, lol!



shahara lefay
pagan priestess 
**serendipitously smitten with severus snape**



From christi0469 at hotmail.com  Sat Feb  2 00:48:57 2002
From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 00:48:57 -0000
Subject: Stags and Rats, Oh My...
In-Reply-To: <a3f3uk+4rj6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3fd1p+se7q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34492

> > Abigail wrote


> I have to say that my cultural biases are still showing.  
Intellectually I understand that a stag is a very powerful symbol, 
> but a part of me is still going "Wait a minute!  That's *Bambi's* 
dad!.


 It's been a while since I've watched Bambi, but the stag in the 
movie was "the king of the forest" (Bambi was the new little prince, 
and quite famous for it) he was quite impressive indeed. Remember 
that the stag saved Bambi and his girlfriend when it seemed that 
hope was lost for them (IIRC). It sounds like Harry's Patronus 
frightening off the dementors in PoA (I want to state that I am not 
using this as a H/H ship arguement. I also think that it's not a co-
incidence that JKR chose Patronus (Patron/Pater) for the incantation.



> Once again, cool.  Unfortunately, your pets have had very bad 
press - which will happen to an animal that's a plague 
> spreader - I'm pretty certain there's no misconception about 
that.  Regardless, the stereotype of a rat exists whether 
> or not it's true about the animal itself - one of the quirks of 
culture, kind of like "Lead on, Macduff" and "Play it again, 
> Sam" - everyone knows the lines even though they're misquoted.  So 
let's just say Peter Pettigrew fits the cultural     
> *idea* of a rat, and not necessarily the zoological truth.


 People who like rats might be able to console themselves with the 
portrayal of the magical rats in the pet store (PoA). They seemd 
highly intelligent and social, playing complicated rope skipping 
games using their tails. IMHO they realized that Scabbers was 
something other than a rat when they interupted their game to check 
him out. You could say that JKR does somewhat maligned snakes as 
well, using them as a metaphor for Slytherin when she wanted to 
point out Slytherin's negative points. She does portray a somewhat 
sympathetic snake at the beginning of PS/SS.


Christi
 





From NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com  Sat Feb  2 01:13:40 2002
From: NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com (NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 20:13:40 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: About Ron (not shipping)
Message-ID: <40.1885e702.298c9744@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34493


I also noticed this...being a single rather lower-income mom of 5 kids!  It 
really annoyed me that the family would take trips to Egypt, etc...yet Ron 
gets crap for magical supplies and (HORRORS) hand me down Dress-Robes!  Mrs. 
Weasly says something like 'We just can't afford new ones!"  Yet...can't they 
magically fix them to look decent??   Its like the family really cares only 
about the older boys who they are so  proud of, but poor Ron is left with 
used junk!  I was SO happy at the end of the 4th book when Harry asked the 
twins to please get Ron some new Dress-Robes!  But sad that his own mother 
couldn't see the need.  (And frankly, as a Pagan who frequents many rituals 
with children, its not hard to make nice robes for real cheap!)

<< Also, another thing I've wondered about: Ron uses a
"hand-me-down wand in the first 2 books. How does this
influence his studies?

As we have seen when Harry gets his wand, things can go
quite wrong, if the wand isn't right for the wizard. >>



shahara lefay
pagan priestess 
**serendipitously smitten with severus snape**



From theennead at attbi.com  Sat Feb  2 00:18:19 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 00:18:19 -0000
Subject: Future books: Humor element, Voldemort/Harry encounters & Non-Characters
In-Reply-To: <a3a75d+9ej7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3fb8b+4t3h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34494

On "Comeuppance" humor, and brands of humor in general.

Cindy also thinks that GoF was the funniest of the books so far:

> Oh, I'd agree that GoF was the funniest book by quite a bit.  

I'm glad it wasn't just me.

> CoS might also contend if you like Lockhart.  

Lockhart didn't do it for me at all.  I found him irritating, and 
only rarely amusing.

> PoA is my favorite book overall, but I think that is because of the 
> characterizations, not the wit.

PoA is my favorite for a number of reasons: theme, characterization, 
keep-you-guessing plot, and high melodrama. (I don't care that it's
cheesy -- I *like* a bit of melodrama from time to time!)  Most of 
all, though, I think that I liked it for its oh-so-tight structure.  

But I also found it pretty darned funny: it would definitely get my 
vote for second funniest of the books so far.  It had a number of
really good farce scenes, and I love farce. But more on that below...


I wrote:

> I absolutely hate most varieties of "comeuppance" humor, for 
> example -- I always have, ever since very early childhood -- and 
> there's a *lot* of that in these books.  

Cindy wrote:

> "Comeuppance" humor, I'm guessing, refers to things like Draco the 
> Bouncing Ferret where we are supposed to think it is funny when a 
> character is abused?  Are there other examples you're thinking of?

A few other people chimed in to express their own dislike of 
slapstick, or of sadistic humor, so now I feel compelled to elaborate.

What I tend to dislike isn't so much slapstick or sadistic humor per 
se.  Far from it -- my sense of humor is actually quite sadistic.

What I don't much care for is a particular brand of sadistic humor
in which the comedy is meant to derive largely from the perception 
that the abused character "deserved it," or that he "had it coming."  
I don't like "Just Desserts."

I am resolutely unamused, for example, when Dudley must take the fall
over and over and over again; and when at the end of GoF the Gryffs, 
not content with having already hexed the Slyths into unconsciousness 
on the train, also feel the need to tramp all over their supine forms 
on their way out the door, it doesn't make me feel happy or gleeful 
or amused, or as if I've just been provided with a feel-good moment 
to lighten my mood.  It makes me feel simply *weary.*  Weary and sad, 
and very very old.  (Part of me desperately wants to believe that, 
given the general emotional tenor of the end of GoF, this was indeed
the intent.  But the realist in me knows better.)

Pig's Tail and Tongue Toffee and Bouncing Ferret and Sylth Stomping
fail to amuse me because...well, honestly, because I just don't see
what's funny about them.  They all seem to fall into a general
category of "it's funny because he really had it coming" humor that I 
just don't happen to get.

But I do very much like other types of humor that derive from
characters' being horribly pained or humiliated or embarrassed or
abused.  For me, though, in order for such scenes to work, the
characters have to be active agents.  It makes me laugh to see people 
desperately struggling to extricate themselves from impossible or 
embarrassing or even potentially lethal situations.  I don't know 
quite what this is called, but I tend to think of it as the primary 
comedic attribute of Farce.  

Both forms of humor are fairly sadistic, of course.  The difference,
I suppose, is that "Just Desserts" is purely sadistic -- there's no
particular identification with the victim involved, although there
may well be a strong identification with those who witness the 
victim's humiliation -- and it also has a tinge of righteous 
satisfaction: it is gratifying because it makes us feel that Justice 
Has Been Served.

Farce, OTOH, is more sado-masochistic.  We take malicious enjoyment 
in the character's discomfiture (and may even take a good deal of 
self-righteous gratification in its "you had that coming" aspects), 
while simultaneously sympathizing and identifying with the victim's 
plight.

The latter makes me laugh; the former doesn't.  Why?  Who knows?
I guess I must just have a taste for both sides of the whip.  ;->

I enjoy farce in all its forms, from the cheesy low-brow bedroom 
variety ("Oh, no!  It's my husband!  Quick -- go hide out on the 
balcony!") to the far more sophisticated verbal type.  I'm 
particularly partial to those farcical scenes in which one character 
is desperately trying to defend an all-too-obviously indefensible 
statement or position to someone who just isn't buying it for a 
second.  (The closest thing to a one-liner version of this that I 
can think of is: "She turned me into a newt!  Well...it got 
better.")  The more twists and turns the argument takes, the funnier
I tend to find it, and of course, it always helps if the character
to whom things are being explained is a bit of a sadist.  

PoA had a lot of nice examples of this form of humor.  I loved, for 
example, the scene in which Harry desperately tries to give Snape 
some explanation for why his head might have been spotted in 
Hogsmeade.  Snape's own dry humor adds tremendously to the comedy, of 
course, as does his malice.

And then, naturally, there was Shrieking Shack.

Yes, of *course* I found Shrieking Shack funny!  It was grim and 
terrible and disturbing -- and also utterly hilarious.  The steady 
degeneration of Pettigrew's attempts at self-defense -- from "It 
wasn't me, it was Black!" to "Listen to all the clever arguments 
these nice thirteen-year-olds are making here, why don't you?  It was 
Black, I'm telling you!" to "Well...okay, so it *was* me, but it 
happened in a moment of weakness, and really, what the hell else 
could you expect?  You know what a terrible coward I've always been," 
to "Well...okay, so I was actually passing on information for an 
entire year, but Voldemort *made* me do it!" to finally "Oh God, just 
please don't kill me" -- was absolutely hysterical.  

Well...to me, at any rate.  Like I said, I've got kind of a black 
sense of humor.

But then, I'm particularly partial to what one might call "black 
farce," farce in which the penalty for failure is monstrously severe -
- death or enslavement or torment, for example, rather than social 
embarrassment or unemployment or plain old humiliation.  The
darker it gets, the funnier I tend to find it.

No-win situations also always tickle me.  There is a subset of black
farce (often known as "ghetto humor") in which the humor derives from
the understanding that the character actually has *no* chance of 
extricating himself from his terrible predicament -- he's utterly 
powerless, and the situation completely hopeless; he simply can't 
win.  The best short example of this type I can think of right now
is that bit in Monty Python's Life of Brian, when the Centurion tells 
the crucified prisoners, already hanging bound and nailed to their 
crosses: "Right, then.  All those who *don't* want to be crucified, 
raise your hands."

JKR's never gone quite _that_ dark, but she starts edging there in
a couple of places in GoF.  Voldie and the DEs in the graveyard, for 
example, was the scene that I've found the funniest in all the books 
so far.  Particularly the brief exchange with Nott ("Yes.  That 
will do" was the GoF laugh-out-loud line for me.)  Again, it's black 
farce and while the humor there *can* be explained, I suppose, 
there's probably little point in doing so.  If it's not the sort of 
thing that happens to strike your comedic fancy, then it just isn't.

Mainly, though, GoF's humor for me lies in the re-reading.  Just
about every Crouch/Moody scene in the book strikes me as funny, 
because I always enjoy humor that derives from the reader's being in 
on the joke.  I like con artistry; I enjoy deceit.  And I 
particularly love to be in on the joke when it comes to statements 
with hidden secondary meanings -- especially if the motives of the 
character making the statements are malicious, or even downright 
*wicked.* (Richard III, Iago)  I'm not quite sure why this form of 
humor should work so much better for me when the double-edged
statements come from someone with ill-intentions, but I suspect that
it may have something to do with the fact that I actively enjoy 
feeling strong conflicting sympathies.  Laughing along with the 
villain, while simultaneously getting to sympathize with the innocent 
dupe, is just far more *satisfying* somehow than laughing along with 
the hero *at* the innocent dupe can ever be.

It's only on re-reading that you find the really black humor in GoF,
but some of that is very black indeed.  The scene in the anteroom off 
of the main hall right after Harry's name has come out of the Goblet 
of Fire, for example, is the thing that has definitely made me laugh
the hardest in all the books to date -- but it's definitely sadistic
humor, and it's only evident on second reading.  It made me giggle
madly the second time through because, knowing the plot, Crouch Sr.'s
position there is just so absolutely horrific that I found it funny.

I mean, there the poor bastard is, he's all Imperio'ed, and he's 
trapped in a very small room with Karkaroff, and with Snape, *and* 
with Ludo Bagman (who may or may not really be a Baddie, but I'd be 
willing to bet that at that point, Crouch was convinced that he was) -
- from his perspective, he's fallen into a pit of vipers, he really 
has -- and then, as if that weren't bad enough, in stomps his 
polyjuiced son, pretending to be Moody, and starts just *torturing* 
the poor man, going on about "gee, maybe someone Confunded the 
Goblet, wonder who could have done that?" and "I'll bet this is all 
part of someone's plan to murder Harry Potter, wonder who that can 
be?"

And poor Crouch can't do a *thing*.  He can't warn anyone, he can't 
tell Dumbledore what's going on.  All he can do is stand there,
looking sicker and sicker by the minute (Harry notices how ill Crouch 
looks not just once, but *twice* in the course of that scene), and
recite his designated lines whenever he's called upon to do so.  Even
when Dumbledore, who is obviously quite concerned that something may
be up with him, invites him to stay for tea (his chance!  his one
chance!) the poor guy can't even manage to throw the curse off long 
enough to so much as accept the invitation.  And I'm absolutely 
certain that Crouch interpreted Ludo Bagman's cheerful prodding ("Oh, 
come on, Barty -- *do* say yes") as deliberate cruelty.

It's terrible, but it's also very funny in a black, black way: the 
second time I read GoF, I found myself giggling out loud all the way 
through that scene.

Then, I have quite a few rather serious...er, parental issues.  (Why, 
yes!  As a matter of fact, I *did* identify with young Barty Crouch.  
Why do you ask?)  So I'm willing to acknowledge the possibility that 
my appreciation for the comedy inherent in that scene might well have 
been edging into the domain of the purely sadistic.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, JKR is going in the right direction
as far as the humor element of the books goes.  But then, I like my
funnies dark.


--- Elkins, who *is* willing to cut Crouch Sr. some slack, but only
because he suffered horribly before he died





From mellienel2 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  2 01:46:04 2002
From: mellienel2 at yahoo.com (mellienel2)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 01:46:04 -0000
Subject: Harry classmates "code"
In-Reply-To: <a3ebib+rd8s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3fgcs+pgab@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34495

I have a theory on this, and I hope it's incorrect, because if it is 
right some people I like are going bad.

Name: Name (duh)
WhiteCircle/BlackSquare: Family allegiance / whether or not will be 
Evil.
N/Star/CircledStar: the N means No Magic Parents, the Star means one 
magic Parent, circled star means Two magic Parents.
Letter: House(duh)

Look at Crabbe and Goyle: CircledStars, Black Squares.

Seamus Finnegan - she scribbled out his circle, perhaps decided later 
that one of his parents would be a Muggle? - this bothers me, because 
he has a Black Square and that just does not bode well.

Hermione - WhiteCircle/N/CircledG 

Susan Bones - WhiteCircle/ Uncircled Star - now, JKR has said that 
Susan Bones' grandparents were killed by LV. Woud'nt this make sense 
if it was on the Muggle side of her family?

Justin Finch Fletchley - BlackSquare (uhoh; if this means his 
eventual allegiance [because his family is muggle, it can't mean 
that], then perhaps it makes sense because we've seen how he acted 
toward Harry at the slightest provocation) / an "N", and we know he 
has no Magic parentage

Not all of the Slytherins on that page seem to be pureblood - but I 
don't think you HAVE to be pureblood to be in Slyth.

So yeah. Maybe it works. Eh.

m







--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jklb66" <jklb66 at y...> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Laoise said:
> > 
> > > But i don't know what the other symbols represent , 
> > > there is a star,a star with a circle around it and an N with a 
> square 
> > > around it.
> > 
> 
> JKR said that one of the things her list of Harry's classmates 
> indicated was parentage. Look at middle column. Some students 
> have "N" surrounded by a square, and some have stars (sometimes 
> circled, sometimes not).  The key, I think, is Seamus Finnigan.  He 
> said in PS/SS that his dad is a muggle and his mom is a witch.  
> Seamus's symbol is a star which is circled, and then 1/2 of the 
> circle is made into star.  1/2 a star; 1/2 magical parentage.  So, 
> perhaps the stars are magical parents.  Look who has the "N" symbol 
> instead-- Hermione and Justin Finch-Fletchley, both of whom have 
non-
> magical parents.  Does anyone know if the other 3 "N's" on the list 
> are muggle-born?
> 
> "jklb66"




From cindysphynx at home.com  Sat Feb  2 01:51:00 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 01:51:00 -0000
Subject: Humor and Crouch Jr. and Sr. (WAS Future books: Humor element, Voldemort/)
In-Reply-To: <a3fb8b+4t3h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3fgm4+7umj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34496

Elkins wrote:

> I am resolutely unamused, for example, when Dudley must take the 
fall
> over and over and over again; and when at the end of GoF the 
Gryffs, 
> not content with having already hexed the Slyths into 
unconsciousness 
> on the train, also feel the need to tramp all over their supine 
forms 
> on their way out the door, it doesn't make me feel happy or gleeful 
> or amused, or as if I've just been provided with a feel-good moment 
> to lighten my mood.  

Hmmm.  Was the trio stomping on the Sytherins meant to be funny?  I 
didn't read it that way.  It seemed meant to be pay-back, but not all 
pay-back is amusing, IMHO.  

I had a different issue with that scene.  Bad guys kick their foe 
then they are down and helpless and unconscious.  Good guys do what 
they have to do and move on.  They do NOT curse people just for 
saying something they don't like, stomp them, and then leave them 
there powerless to rescue themselves.  

Contrast the treatment of Draco, Crabb and Goyle on the train with 
the treatment of Krum in the maze.  Krum had used an Unforgivable 
Curse, for cryin' out loud.  Yet Cedric and Harry didn't step on his 
prone body or gloat over him.  Indeed, Harry seemed slightly 
sympathetic to Krum, wondering what on earth possessed Krum to use an 
Unforgivable Curse just to win a contest.

Maybe the train stomp scene is transitional and is designed to show 
that this is an all-out war now?  I hope that's all it is supposed to 
be.

Elkins wrote:

> But I do very much like other types of humor that derive from
> characters' being horribly pained or humiliated or embarrassed or
> abused.  For me, though, in order for such scenes to work, the
> characters have to be active agents.  It makes me laugh to see 
people 
> desperately struggling to extricate themselves from impossible or 
> embarrassing or even potentially lethal situations.  I don't know 
> quite what this is called, but I tend to think of it as the primary 
> comedic attribute of Farce.  

Hmmm.  I'm trying to think of examples of this from canon.  One is 
Pettigrew trying to talk his way out of trouble, as you mention.  
Another is Harry trying to escape from the graveyard.  My reaction to 
both scenes was similar:  I felt kind of sorry for the soon-to-be-
victim, although I was much more emotionally invested with Harry.  

Actually, nothing in the Shrieking Shack struck me as funny.  I think 
there were events that were arguably funny, but I was just too 
interested in what was going to happen to pay attention.  Snape 
getting knocked out is an example.  The rat-like description of 
Pettigrew was another.  I don't think I can appreciate humor in a 
white-knuckle moment like the Shrieking Shack.  It's my loss, I 
guess.  

I think for me to be amused by a character squirming in a tight spot, 
the tight spot can't be a matter of life or death.  That's why, for 
me, the Unexpected Task is a hoot.  That's also why I loved it when 
Moody invited Hermione to leave when she objected to being put under 
the Imperius Curse.   

Elkins again:

> PoA had a lot of nice examples of this form of humor.  I loved, for 
> example, the scene in which Harry desperately tries to give Snape 
> some explanation for why his head might have been spotted in 
> Hogsmeade.  Snape's own dry humor adds tremendously to the comedy, 
of 
> course, as does his malice.

Oh, yes, that was a gem!  Again, Harry was squirming, but there 
wasn't much at stake.  Just the Map and yet another 50 points from 
Gryffindor.  Been there, done that.

Elkins wrote (about a second reading of Harry's name coming out of 
the Goblet:

> It's terrible, but it's also very funny in a black, black way: the 
> second time I read GoF, I found myself giggling out loud all the 
way 
> through that scene.
> 

On a re-read, I was amused by just how brazen Moody is.  He walks 
right in and gives away half of the plot twist, and I didn't believe 
it.  Nope.  I wasn't buying anything Moody said in that scene.  I was 
terribly amused by everything that happened as Harry tried to cope 
with being the fourth Champion.  Again, he squirms, but nothing much 
is on the line except being ostracized.

Elkins wrote:

>As a matter of fact, I *did* identify with young Barty Crouch.  
<snip>  

> --- Elkins, who *is* willing to cut Crouch Sr. some slack, but only
> because he suffered horribly before he died

Really?  Crouch Jr. was kind of a flat-liner for me.  I mean, he was 
great as Moody, but I didn't get a real sense for him individually.  

And now that you mention it, I gather that we are not supposed to 
like Crouch Sr., but I liked him well enough.  I guess we're not 
supposed to like him because he spent too much time at the office, 
and because he gave his son a rather truncated trial.  But he was 
right about his son's guilt, and a fellow has to put in some face 
time to make become Minister of Magic.  

Really, 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?

I'll definitely cut Crouch Sr. a break, but not Crouch Jr.

Cindy (who is also feeling parental, and who would take Crouch Jr. to 
the woodshed)





From mrgrrrargh at aol.com  Sat Feb  2 01:48:55 2002
From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 20:48:55 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry classmates "code"
Message-ID: <ab.1651e728.298c9f87@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34497

m:


> WhiteCircle/BlackSquare: Family allegiance / whether or not will be 
> Evil.

I think that whoever said that circle was female and square was male was 
correct. The symbols do fall along gender lines.

-SpyGameFan


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





From midwife34 at aol.com  Sat Feb  2 02:50:26 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 02:50:26 -0000
Subject: OT: Can there be Magic?
In-Reply-To: <a3emgn+9ib4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3fk5i+sgb8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34498

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "christi0469" <christi0469 at h...> wrote:
> > Devin said,
> 
> 
> > 
> 
>  What I found the most interesting about Hermione tutoring Harry on 
> the Summoning spell was her insistance that he study the theory. It 
> leads me to believe that nagic could be a manifestation of science, 
> most likely physics (manipulation of force). I'm not sure how the 
> pronuciation is important (Flitwick says it is); perhaps it helps 
> you tap into some sort of genetic memory.
> 
> 
> Christi

Well , tecnically speaking, all matter is made up of wave frequencies 
(not really solid). So if we are dealing with a bunch of particles in 
a giant soup called "reality", then it is possible to manipulate 
those particles into any form and in any way you choose to do it. I 
suppose the wizards have some form of telekinetic ability that we 
don't have that enables them to do that. I suspect the wand helps 
focus that ability in some way, although it's probably not necessary 
since Harry was "accidently" doing things before he went to Hogwarts, 
and the house elves perform magic without wands. 

Jo Ellen




From mellienel2 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  2 02:51:23 2002
From: mellienel2 at yahoo.com (mellienel2)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 02:51:23 -0000
Subject: Harry classmates "code"
In-Reply-To: <ab.1651e728.298c9f87@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a3fk7b+3dne@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34499

> 
> I think that whoever said that circle was female and square was 
male was 
> correct. The symbols do fall along gender lines.


Look too hard for something and you'll miss it. *doink*.

But still, wouldn't she, well, know if they were female/male, she'd 
have to make a note? Perhaps for, like, Terry Boot, but that's Trevor 
in her book. Eh.

She did say it was about magical lineage AND allegiances - and I 
really can't see how you can do all that with just the stars / Ns. 




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Sat Feb  2 01:32:43 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 01:32:43 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's judgement(Was Re: Snape mentioning Peter)
In-Reply-To: <a3e9kd+it0h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3ffjr+7ajd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34500

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., mrgrrrargh at a... wrote:
> 
> > The thing is, Dumbledore has been wrong in his choices of faculty
> before. 
> > Look at Lockhart. His resume was good, but he had done NOTHING.
> Dumbledore 
> > hired him none the less 
> 
> Well, we're told that Lockhart was the only available candidate that
> year, so Dumbledore was kind of stuck.  

This keeps me thinking about something in Year one.  Harry learns
(From Ron via his elder brothers, I think) that Snape was after 
Quirel's DADA job. 

Why doesn't Dumbledor put Snape in the DADA job?  He'd be 
great,  IMHO. Is it because potion teachers are even harder to 
find? Would Snape agree to taking both positions (and get two 
paychecks, of course)?

Running, Ducking, and Dodging

Tex






From tanie_05 at hotmail.com  Sat Feb  2 00:28:02 2002
From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 00:28:02 -0000
Subject: Laughing Sirius
In-Reply-To: <16a.7fea06f.298a0b81@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a3fbqi+7sql@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34501

mrgrrrargh at a... wrote:
> I never was quite sure -- maybe I missed the explanation in the 
book -- why 
> Sirius was laughing hysterically after Peter blew up the street 
full of 
> Muggles and turned into a rat. Anyone know?

Sirius was having one of those days where *nothing* is going right, 
except in his case, we went to the extreme. Hmmm...don't understand? 
I'll use myself as an example & this really did happen to me in real 
life:

One Tuesday morning, I overslept by a whole 45 minutes. Needless to 
say, I was running around like a mad man. I then missed my bus & had 
to get my mom to bring me to school. When I got to school, I forgot 
my I.D. & had to get a temporary one. Then when I got to my 
ketboarding class, we had a pop quiz on something I really didn't 
understand & for math class, I forgot my homework in my room & got a 
Big, Fat Zero for both the quiz & my homework. Can't get any worse 
right? Wrong. Ok, girls know exactly what I mean when I say that time 
of the month rolled around, & I really wasn't prepared for it. So, 
here I am, walking around with a sweater around my waist all day 
long, miresable as ever. Then my friend Kasi reminded me about the 
bake sale on tomorrow. (I was prepared for that though.) Ok, at the 
end of the day, when it was finally time to go home, my locker got 
stuck. When it finally got unstuck, I missed my bus again. By then, I 
was too upset. But then my sister's friend Kori give me a ride home. 
I got home, finished my homework, & went in my kitchen to bake the 
chocolate chip cookies I was supposed to make. 'Ok, this is the one 
thing that is finally going right,' so I thought. My mom asked me to 
do something for her & I did, telling her to take the cookies out for 
me when the timer went off. Well, obviously she either forgot or 
didn't hear me, but when I got back, I saw smoke coming from the oven 
& rushed to take the cookies out. My perfect little cookies, now 
covered with fire estinguisher residew, were little bits of charcoal. 
I looked at them & suddenly it was so funny I started laughing & I 
couldn't stop myself. I started crying while laughing then I just 
broke down in tears. (talk about a mood swing.) Well I guess my mom 
felt bad because she sent me to bed & when I woke up the next 
morning, there was a new batch with a note from my mom telling me how 
she was sorry & hoped I had a better day today. (BTW, it was better.)

The reason why I brought this up was because, overall Sirius had a 
really horrible time with this. Let's review his day. (Well, it was 
more than a day but oh well.) First, Sirius managed to convince James 
to use Peter Pettigrew as the Secret Keeper instead of him, thinking 
maybe Voldemort(aaaaaahhhh!!!) would come after him instead. Then he 
goes to check on Peter & he's not there. Now he was getting worried. 
So he goes now James & Lily's house...and sees the house as rubble, 
finding his best friends dead in their own home. It finally reaches 
him to what Peter has done. He sets out to confront him. But dear 
Peter alreadys has a plan for him. He makes it seems as though Sirius 
told Voldemort where the Potters were & fakes his own death, killing 
12 muggles in the process. Now we have Sirius,(much like myself), in 
a situation he can't control any more. Everyone will now think he 
committed these murders & that he betrayed James & Lily. At this 
point, he kinda loses himself & he starts laughing in spite of the 
circumstances. Now enters Fudge, who sees him laughing. Well, that's 
my explanation. Hope you understand. Happy reading!
-Kyrstyne
(who, just having read over explantion, feels proud & is laughing at 
her own day)





From fiatincantatum at attbi.com  Sat Feb  2 03:08:54 2002
From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 22:08:54 -0500
Subject: What does Voldemort fear?
Message-ID: <3C5B11F6.22364.358D72F@localhost>

No: HPFGUIDX 34502

We know from PoA that what Harry fears is "fear itself", but what about 
Voldemort? 

In the graveyard scene in GoF, when the shadows have come out of his wand, 
Voldemort is afraid.  "Livid with fear" is what is in my copy.

What is he afraid of, at that point?  Why is he afraid of it?   What does *he* 
have to be frightened of, anyway?

Is he afraid of them because they're dead? Because they might want revenge? Is 
he afraid of them as individuals or is he afraid of what they represent?  Is 
there something that the shadows (or perhaps ghosts) might be able to do to 
him?

Is Voldemort afraid of death? Is that why he was/is trying so hard for 
immortality? 

Discuss, please, and enlarge upon the idea ... I'd like to hear what other 
people think!

Fiat

  
-- 
Fiat Incantatum 
fiatincantatum at attbi.com

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





From midwife34 at aol.com  Sat Feb  2 03:43:33 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 03:43:33 -0000
Subject: What does Voldemort fear?
In-Reply-To: <3C5B11F6.22364.358D72F@localhost>
Message-ID: <a3fn95+ton2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34503

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Fiat Incantatum" <fiatincantatum at a...> 
wrote:
> We know from PoA that what Harry fears is "fear itself", but what 
about 
> Voldemort? 
> 
> In the graveyard scene in GoF, when the shadows have come out of 
his wand, 
> Voldemort is afraid.  "Livid with fear" is what is in my copy.
> 
> What is he afraid of, at that point?  Why is he afraid of it?   
What does *he* 
> have to be frightened of, anyway?
> 
>I asked a similar question a few weeks ago "Why is it important to 
Voldemort to have immortality and why is he wrecking havoc on the 
wizarding world to obtain power?" I got the impression that Voldemort 
wants physical immortality because he said that he could not hold a 
wand in his unincorporated state. If he can't hold a wand, he can't 
perform spells. Obviously the wizards consider the spirit as an 
immortal being because ghosts are roaming Hogwarts. Evidently, this 
wasn't what Voldy had in mind as an acceptable immortal form. I think 
the fear factor in seeing the spirits of the his murder victims being 
ejected from the wand was not the spirits, themselves,  that 
frightened old Voldy. It was the fact that Harry could force the 
reversal of spells from Voldy's wand, and all that implies, that 
frightened him. After all, it was crucial that he have a physical 
body in order to use his wand and there goes Harry, causing his wand 
to backfire on him, which put a major glitch in his plans for wizard 
world domination. Whether Voldy ever realized that Harry's wand was 
his wand's twin is unclear. Voldy may assume that Harry has 
capabilities he really doesn't have based on this reversal 
action....who knows, it remains to be seen what Voldy will make of 
this "fly in the ointment".

Jo Ellen




From mellienel2 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  2 03:43:41 2002
From: mellienel2 at yahoo.com (mellienel2)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 03:43:41 -0000
Subject: What does Voldemort fear?
In-Reply-To: <3C5B11F6.22364.358D72F@localhost>
Message-ID: <a3fn9d+gujo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34504

> 
> Discuss, please, and enlarge upon the idea ... I'd like to hear 
what other 
> people think!


I think the last time something Voldy didn't count on happening 
happened, he was blasted from his physical form. And now something's 
happening, and maybe he was wrong, maybe it wasn't a mistake, maybe 
Harry really IS someone for him to worry about. And then there's the 
phoenix song - which JKR said in FB strikes fear into the hearts of 
the evil-minded. Combine the two - the Unknown and Phoenix Song - and 
you've got a good Voldy fear recipe.

:)




From kokobreen at juno.com  Sat Feb  2 03:51:05 2002
From: kokobreen at juno.com (christine m breen)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 21:51:05 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 1636
Message-ID: <20020201.215108.-161711.0.kokobreen@juno.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34505

> I asked this once before, but no one answered: Why does Dumbledore,
>in the very beginning of the first book, insist that "Lord
>Voldemort's" name be spoken, and that things should be called by their
>proper name... 

I remember hearing it or reading that what you can identify, you can
control.  Such as your fears--identify them and you can start to control
them.  Identify your weaknesses--you cannot change them until you
identify them.  Also from reading many sci-fi books--in those books if
you knew the name of the demon you could control it.  So perhaps
Dumbledore wanting Voldemort's name used was so Harry would gain control
of his fear of Voldemort and ulitimately gain control of Voldemort (i.e.
defeat him).
Christine



From Vivien529 at aol.com  Sat Feb  2 04:33:20 2002
From: Vivien529 at aol.com (viv529)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 04:33:20 -0000
Subject: UK HP books on tape?
Message-ID: <a3fq6g+50cp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34506

Does anyone have any idea how I could get a hold of them?  I would 
really like to hear the Stephen Fry versions of the series, as well 
as hear the English version vs. the US one. Can you order on 
Amazon.com/UK from the US?  Anyone tried it?  Off list responses are 
fine.

Thanks,
Michelle




From boggles at earthlink.net  Sat Feb  2 04:35:33 2002
From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 22:35:33 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lucius theory
In-Reply-To: <20020130223305.85984.qmail@web20302.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20020130223305.85984.qmail@web20302.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f0501040cb8811bd8ec48@[66.32.50.65]>

No: HPFGUIDX 34507

At 2:33 PM -0800 1/30/02, Suki Jones wrote:
>Draco's name means "dragon" (or duck *grin*). Dragon
>is usually connected with Satan. That is definitely
>dark.

Dragons in the wizarding world do not seem to be considered evil at 
all.  They are dangerous beasts, but morally neutral - and rather 
valuable.  Remember, Krum loses points for making his dragon trample 
her eggs, and none of the Triwizard champions hurt their dragons 
permanently.  That suggests that they're a strategic obstacle, like 
the merfolk were an obstacle, not in any sense evil.

Perhaps this is an indication that Draco is indiscriminately 
dangerous to both sides?  :)

>Lucius, on the other hand, means "light".

Er, yes.  You were just speaking about names associated with the 
fallen foe in Christianity?  "Lucifer," perhaps?

Not all that gives light is Good.

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



From Whirdy at aol.com  Sat Feb  2 05:34:02 2002
From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 00:34:02 EST
Subject: LV and Fear
Message-ID: <6e.171c4477.298cd44a@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34508

Fiat has asked what does LV fear, more precisely What is he afraid of, at 
that point?  Why is he afraid of it?   What does *he* have to be frightened 
of, anyway?

Jo Ellen opined that is was "the fear factor in seeing the spirits of the his 
murder victims being ejected from the wand was not the spirits, themselves,  
that 
frightened old Voldy. It was the fact that Harry could force the reversal of 
spells from Voldy's wand, and all that implies, that frightened him."

and to paraphrase mellienel2,  Voldy didn't count things happening that did 
happen and now he has that chaos factor and the Phoenix Song both to contend 
with.


However I think that LV fear is forced by a realization that HP came to his 
first year at Hogwarts.  He learned it from Prof. Dumbledore that death is 
perhaps not the end of one's existence, but as he says 'the next great 
adventure."

Here LV has been gleefully murdering wizards and muggles, left and right, and 
maybe, just maybe, he's been doing them a favor.  But more than that, his 
victims are not "permanently dead"  -- they can return and interfere with his 
plans, give advice to his enemy (HP, himself) and embarass him in front of 
his supporters.

His fear may also arise from a realization that he is inept - that a 
semi-trained 14 year old wizard may not be able to beat him yet, but can hold 
his own; that HP's instincts are truer that LV years of studying the DA.  And 
can you imagine his chagrin to find that the wand of a teen-ager has bested 
his.

It is probably time for LV to seek counselling about his unresolved conflicts 
and excessive aggression.  Stress management should also be added to his 
time-schedule.

whirdy







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




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Sat Feb  2 05:59:50 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 16:59:50 +1100
Subject: VITTLES, the HP bestiary, irony vs sarcasm, counselling, excusing vs understanding, accents
Message-ID: <010b01c1abae$f222a320$4422ddcb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 34509

uncmark:
> I'm surprised the Hogwart's crew wasn't more creative in Goblet of 
Fire. Did anyone try anything but age potions?

Yeah, I noticed that myself.  A poor effort.  You'd think at least the Slytherins could have come up with something a bit craftier.  Mind you, it's Dumbledore's imagination they're pitting themselves against here... something tells me the big D is a creative chap...

Hollydaze:
> I can't remember who now, but about a month ago someone suggested that the books might go full circle and that the main confrontation in the whole books, may not actually be the one where Harry defeats Voldemort the second time, but the one where Harry "temporarily demobilises" LV, his first confrontation as a Baby. That would be the final confrontation of the books. I don't know quite how it would work (would you like to re post your original message or explain more your idea -sorry I can't remember who you are) but I really like that idea two (as long as it is coupled with the "Love is the downfall of LV" theory presented above - An acronym? Tabouli any ideas?)<

Let me see.  If you just want the "at the end of Book 7, love vanquishes Voldemort" line, you could have:

V.I.T.T.L.E.S. (Voldemort Is Trounced Through Love, Ending Series)

On the other hand, if you want this theme *plus* the series ending where it began with infant Harry's semi-dispatch of the big V... (phew, you're really challenging me here):

H.E.L.P.A.N.D.L.A.C.E.R.A.T.E. (Harry Exercises Lily's Posthumous Adoration, Neutralising Dark Lord; A Commencement Event Repeated At The End)

Abigail:
> Sirius' transformation into a giant dog allows for some very fun red herrings in PoA, not to mention that 
Padfoot, the giant spectral dog who haunts cemetaries and suchlike is part of Scottish (?) folklore.

Is said giant spectral dog really called Padfoot in Scottish folklore?  Do we have any folklore buffs who know more about this myth (or is this in the Lexicon somewhere)?

Abigail:
> I have to say that my cultural biases are still showing.  Intellectually I understand that a stag is a very powerful symbol, but a part of me is still going "Wait a minute!  That's *Bambi's* dad!.

Depends on whether we have Disney's Bambi or Felix Salten's original Bambi (who was no cutesy household pet, as I recall...).  From all I've heard, deer, pretty though they are, are in fact skittish, vicious beasts, and very hard to tame.  There was a scene in Rowena Farre's "Seal Morning" where she hand-raises a roe deer and releases it, only to have him come back and slash holes in her a few months later.  You don't mess with dem antlers...

Gabriel:
> Okay, I've been keeping quiet on this whole thing, but I've got to react to this. <snip information about rats>  I was thrilled when Scabbers showed up in the first book. Good press for pet rats, YAY!

If it's any comfort, in Chinese astrology the Rat is quick-witted, loyal, resourceful and charming (Tabouli, who was born in the Year of the Rat, nods approvingly).  For that matter, the Snake is wise, elegant, shrewd and philosophical.  The Dragon, of course, is impetuous, forthright, passionate and a born leader.  Note that there's more to it than just the year of your birth, as I've seen implied - there's also the element of the year you were born in, the moon you were born under, the hour of the day you were born, and so on.  I'm a Water Rat, born under the moon of the Horse, in the hour of the Horse.  In Western astrology, Gemini with Virgo rising.  While we're musing on science, religion and belief systems in general, do we have any keen astrologers in our midst?  (Ron as Aries, Hermione as Virgo, Harry as Leo...?  Whatever you think of astrology, you have to wonder if JKR took a peek in a book when setting their birthdays...)  My left brain scoffs disgustedly at such things, but my right brain loves it so much I indulge it now and then!

Devin:
> However, I can see someone else attempting to kill Harry in a finale (more on who that could be 
later) and whoever (Hagrid?--I'm not fond of the idea, I really love Hagrid) taking the "bullet" instead.<

Ahaaa.  Link in to Wormtail as Gollum (interesting idea).  I think JKR is setting us up for a Nine Fingered  (well, OK, Silver Handed) Wormtail takes the bullet scene, a la Gollum at the end of LOTR.  Maybe just as all seems lost for Harry, and Voldemort is leaning over his fallen body, wand in hand to finish him off, a rat will scamper in out of nowhere and bite him hard on the leg, so he misses.  Blinded with fury at this distraction, Voldemort blasts the rat, giving Harry time to recover, grab his own wand and polish him off.  Scene ends with Hermione and Ron (or someone) arriving what would have been just too late, to find a dead Voldemort, the corpse of a rat with a silver paw, and Harry, unconscious with exhaustion, his sweaty hair pushed aside to show his SCAR...

Devin:
> Especially good point about Aragog's remembrance of Hagrid and the possible Norbert 
connection therein.  Beautiful.  Yes, I'm sure Norbert will be back.<

This might be an OoP twist... Charlie writes to Ron to say his Dragon Keeping organisation has been overthrown by Voldemort, and all the dragons stolen... Mrs Lestrange comes roaring into Hogwarts with the Norwegian Ridgeback, deadliest of them all, to kill Harry... just as Harry is Accio-ing his broom, the dragon sees a panicking Hagrid, tenderly lays his head in Hagrid's lap, and accidentally takes Mrs Lestrange out with an affectionate lash of the tail.

Amy Z:
> And I'd love to know where you'd categorize the sorts of verbal humor in 
which JKR is very adept; they usually get classified as some kind of irony, 
e.g. "Just then, Neville caused a slight diversion by turning into a large 
canary" (that's physical humor, but it's the "slight diversion" phrasing 
that makes me LOL) and "Professor Trelawney kept predicting Harry's death, 
which he found extremely annoying."

Gwen:
> JKR does irony often and well. (Side note: if written, it's irony. If
spoken, it's sarcasm. So Ron's little comments are "sarcastic" if we are
talking about his delivery, but "ironic" if we are discussing JKR's literary
convention with the character.)<

To the first comment, I agree.  In fact, clever ironic humour is probably my favorite sort.  All very Australian of me - Australians have this habit of being so self-conscious about appearing pretentious that they have to dilute *any* comment about emotions, "proper" behaviour, compliments, insults, taking something seriously (gasp!), etc.etc. with some irony, just to make sure no-one could accuse them of pretension.  This causes a lot of trouble when they go to the US, because Americans (O dear, should I respond to recent plaints on this list and use the phrase "citizens of the US" instead?  It's a bit unwieldy) are apt to take them literally and get offended or confused, having more of a culture of emotional expressiveness and taking things seriously and less ironic tendencies.  Ooooo, the problems I have seen.  In fact, there was a very ironic article about ye olde Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman break-up which went into US/Oz differences in detail, which I'll post the link for on-list if I can find it...

However, I don't know about Gwen's explanation of the difference between irony and sarcasm.  I thought the written/spoken difference was only for libel/slander.  I think the terms have very different nuances: "sarcasm", to me, has a more biting, harsh tone about it; "irony" is lighter, more aloof (and sometimes indulgent, but rarely acid).  Maybe from a strictly literary analysis perspective Gwen's definition is correct, but I've certainly heard spoken language referred to as "ironic" by people whose grammar and language in general is usually pointedly correct.  I used this distinction on-list once myself to compare Dumbledore and Belgarath:

Me (17/8/01):
>Dumbledore's humour is lightly ironic (terribly English, that!), articulate and satirical, and he projects a sort of wise >kindly grandfather image most of the time, whereas Belgarath projects the disreputable, slovenly old man image, and >his humour is more sarcastic and involves baiting people, usually Polgara.  The kindly grandfather is only an >occasional visitor.

>Compare Dumbledore: "What happened down in the dungeons (...) is a complete secret, so, naturally, the whole >school knows.  I believe your friends Misters Fred and George were responsible for trying to send you a lavatory seat."

>with Belgarath (to Garion after he's just blown their cover): "Are you sure you don't have a trumpet somewhere under >your clothes?  Maybe you could blow a few fanfares as you go along."


Of course, the most ironic example of irony is Alanis Morissette's song "Ironic", which lists ten or twelve different examples of irony, none of which is actually genuinely ironic!  Ironic indeed...

(I always thought she could substitute "Isn't it a bummer?" for "Isn't it ironic?" in that song and it would work much better)

Spy Game Fan:
> Dumbledore seems to be rather friendly and available to the students. He is 
always there to help Harry, even asking if Harry is okay. He seems to be 
Hogwarts school counselor. Which makes me wonder why there isn't a separate 
position for helping students cope.<

Ahhh.  I feel the native cross-cultural psychologist rising to the surface again.  I always find it interesting that therapy/counselling is the primary solution in the Anglophone (and particularly North American) world for addressing mental/psychological/social problems.  It says a lot about the Anglophone perception of emotions and rationality... you go to a stranger who isn't emotionally involved with your problems because s/he is therefore able to look at them "objectively" and help you do so (the idea being that emotions interfere with people's ability to be objective, rational and effective at addressing their problems, and therefore need to be "worked through" or "gotten over").

Alas for counsellors in multicultural organisations, this is not the norm in a lot of other cultures!  The stigma attached to anything that hints at "mental illness" (e.g. going to a therapist) in a lot of cultures is reasonably well-known, but what's less well-known is that some cultures would see the idea of exposing sensitive family and relationship issues to people outside their trusted family circle unthinkable and an act of gross betrayal.  Why would I want to tell some stranger about my private business?  How could a stranger help me?  How could I trust a stranger?  Of course I would go to a family member or trusted friend who knows the people involved, because they *care* about me and my family!  Of course I feel passionately about it, how dare this cold stranger imply there's something wrong with this?

When you consider that the instinctive reaction of an Anglophone seeing someone with serious personal problems is to suggest counselling or therapy, you can see the cross-cultural problems this causes.  I saw a lot of this working with Asian international students in Australian universities (who have of course been cut off from their usual support network of trusted friends and family, but often find the notion of a Western counsellor threatening and incomprehensible, and the fact that people kept trying to send them to one insulting).  And then, for those Westernised enough or venturesome enough to try out the counselling option, there's the issue of cultural awareness.  If the counsellor doesn't understand the cultural values that are so intrinsically linked to personal problems, the chances are s/he won't be able to help much anyway.  Oooo, the number of times well-meaning Anglo-Australians would tell me that I should explain to my Chinese mother that she had to realise I am an independent adult now and have the right to be treated as an equal and make my own life decisions... (ha!  I'd like to see them try...)

Joanna ( An American college student who wants to live outside of the USA, to get experience and learn another than the American way of thinking)

A fine thing...

Bonnie:
> Why is everyone (even Marianne - who like me, professes to 
dislike Snape!) looking for childhood trauma and unrequited love to 
excuse Snape for ever having become a DE and for the inexcusable way 
in which he treats Harry and Neville and Hermione - and that whole 
class of Gryffindors?

Margaret:
> Well, think carefully.  Are the posters in question really trying
to =excuse= Snape, or are they simply trying to =understand= him
and his motivations?<

Hear hear.  Understanding someone's actions is *not* the same thing as justifying or excusing them.

This all links in to the black and white reasoning we've been discussing on-list.  If one puts people in boxes clearly marked "good" and "evil", there's not much point looking at motivations.  Evil people's motives are always evil, and therefore invalid, and good people's motives are always good (if occasionally misguided).  If someone with shades of grey reasoning comes along and tries to explain that the "evil" people actually have some understandable reasons and motivations for their apparently "evil" behaviour (allowing them some validity), the inevitable response of the black and white reasoner is that you are trying to say that there is some excuse for being evil!

I personally find the stark good/evil box system pretty bleak.  Where does it leave us?  If some people are just Evil to the core, what can we possibly hope to do about it?  Kill them?  (Vernon: When will they learn that hanging's the only way to deal with these people?)  Reform them?  Assuming they can be reformed, how do you reprogram an Evil person into a Good person?  I prefer the understanding approach: at least if two opposing sides appreciate each others' humanity enough to understand each others' motivations and actions (even if they think they're abominable), we have some basis for negotiating a solution other than "I'm right, you're wrong, if you won't become right like me I'll kill you".

But this is straying into dangerous waters, so I'll change the subject here...

Hollydaze:
> I presumed we were talking about the language rather than the countries anyway and in those ways it is right as the British version is written in *English* while the "American" version is in US English (hence US in the title of the discussion)<

Weeeell, if we're drawing the distinction between the English used in England and the English used in the US, it's worth pointing out that within both Britain and North America there are some pretty striking differences in the English used in different regions!  JKR has illustrated this to some degree with Hagrid's speech (West country England?).  For what it's worth, I'm pretty confident that I could understand most variations on American English, due to media exposure, but have been known to have difficulty with some of the regional accents in parts of Britain.  Before prolonged exposure to Scottish people at my Presbyterian school, a broad Scottish accent with colloquialisms could really pose a challenge (not to mention regional accents within England itself, like Yorkshire accents...).  Didn't they release "Trainspotting" (Scottish English) with subtitles in the US?  How about "Brassed Off" (Yorkshire English)?

I *am* fond of accents.  Do we have any linguists on-list who've studied accents?  I'd love to study 'em myself...

Tabouli (who has what I think is called an "Educated Australian" accent).


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




From Whirdy at aol.com  Sat Feb  2 06:40:58 2002
From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 01:40:58 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] US/UK Versions Glossary
Message-ID: <8d.1353aca4.298ce3fa@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34510

In a message dated 2/1/02 4:14:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, Jefrigo21 at aol.com 
writes:


> I have read a lot of books, and I have asked questions about things I did 
> not understand. Some Americans are more observant than others.  The same 
> goes for a lot of other cultures, wether it is in the States or the UK. I 
> would like to see a sort of dictionary in the books, so people can learn....
> 
> Joanna ( An American college student who wants to live outside of the USA, 
> to get experience and learn another than the American way of thinking)
> 
> 

IMHO a glossary would be infinitely more help.

whirdy


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




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Sat Feb  2 08:37:12 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 08:37:12 -0000
Subject: Harry classmates "code"
In-Reply-To: <a3fgcs+pgab@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3g8fo+m040@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34511

jklb66 wrote:
> > JKR said that one of the things her list of Harry's classmates 
> > indicated was parentage. Look at middle column. Some students 
> > have "N" surrounded by a square, and some have stars (sometimes 
> > circled, sometimes not).  The key, I think, is Seamus Finnigan.  
> > He 
> > said in PS/SS that his dad is a muggle and his mom is a witch.  
> > Seamus's symbol is a star which is circled, and then 1/2 of the 
> > circle is made into star.  1/2 a star; 1/2 magical parentage.  So, 
> > perhaps the stars are magical parents.  Look who has the "N" 
> > symbol instead-- Hermione and Justin Finch-Fletchley, 
> > both of whom have non-magical parents.  

Oooo, well-spotted!  I think you are right; the middle column is 
parentage.  It looks to me like JKR *crossed-out* the circle around 
Seamus' star. Perhaps she started off with him as a pure-blood, then 
decided to make him a half-blood.  So, N = muggle-born; Star = one 
magic parent; Circled star = 2 magic parents.

I know many people here have said the symbols indicate "how magical" a 
 student is.  But, perhaps this means the symbols tell us how much 
magical *blood* (not magical *power*) the student has.

mellienel2 added:
> I have a theory on this, and I hope it's incorrect, because if it is 
> right some people I like are going bad....
> WhiteCircle/BlackSquare: Family allegiance / whether or not will be 
> Evil....

Someone on the list previously theorized that white circle = girl, and 
blacksquare = boy.  That seems right; all the girls have circles and 
the boys have squares.  (Of course, maybe JKR thinks all the girls are 
good and all the boys are evil.  Just kidding!) 


-- Judy





From catlady at wicca.net  Sat Feb  2 09:25:18 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 09:25:18 -0000
Subject: Molly's Age / US vs UK English / Name: Chang / Shrieking Shack Scene /  
Message-ID: <a3gb9u+6l0a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34512

Jo Ellen Rober wrote:

> OK, but can I point out that it is still biologically possible, 
> although rare, for a 57 year old woman to become pregnant. Average 
> age for cessation of menstruation is 55 over here in the US. My own 
> grandmother had her last child at age 54. So, do you suppose Molly 
> and Mr. Weasley kept having children they could not afford because 
> they wanted a girl, and then decided to use birth control after 
> Ginny was born? Or do you think Molly had Ginny as a "change of 
> life" baby as we call it in Alabama?

Considering the two-year spacing of most of the younger Weasleys 
(in Book 1, Percy is fifth year, the twins are third year, and Ron 
is first year), and the seven or eight year gap between Charlie and 
Percy, it seemed that Molly and Arthur did use birth control, at 
least for spacing. I thought they just kept trying for a girl, until 
I thought that it would explain that gap if they had originally 
planned to only have two children, and then when they were fighting 
the Dark Side, so many wizarding people were being killed, they 
eventually decided to replenish the population, and then when 
Voldemort was defeated, they figured that other couples would take up 
that task. I don't understand why they suddenly skipped the spacing 
for the last kid, especially when they didn't know yet that it would 
be the last. I could understand if there were 11 months between the 
FIRST two, as with my domestic partner and his next brother (you're 
the midwife, *you* explain to the list why I said that). 

I think Arthur and Molly are closer to 80 than to 70. Let me do my 
computation on 80 wizarding years old:
80 - 20 = 60
60 / 2 = 30
30 + 20 = 50.
The Muggle equivalent age would be 50, and the information that your 
grandmother had a child at age 54 comforts me, because I have a 
fanfic in which I want a 80 year old witch to have a change-of-life 
baby (I've heard that phrase here in California), and I was worried 
that 80 would be too old.

Chappnee wrote:

> just like I loved finding out that Americans have different words 
> for things like 'pop' in Canada on a cruise I went on. The poor boy
> I was talking to mistook me for saying 'pot', as in the drug, until 
> he realised I was pointing to my drink!

That stuff that Brits apparently call 'fizzy lemonade', causing 
confusion when I told my friend I wanted lemonade and he brought me 
Seven-Up instead; I should have said 'citronade'. Anyway, there are a 
lot of different names for that stuff in USA, probably regional 
differences. New Yorkers apparently say "soda" and a man who grew up 
in North Florida insisted that it was ALL called 'coke'. A man 
who grew up in Oregon said it was called 'pop' and one of my weird 
friends insisted that in his childhood it was called 'mixers'. As 
for me, I didn't know it had any name but "sof' drink" until I went 
away to university.

Tabouli wrote:

> she agreed that Cho Chang sounded like a Hong Kong name, though she
> thought that "Chang" wasn't a typical Cantonese name (which are 
> more likely to have a dipthong, like Cheung).

In my dorm at university, there was a girl from Hong Kong named Miao 
Chang. I love(d) the idea of being named Meow, but Miao had a little 
dog rather than a cat. 

Dicentra wrote:

> they were on opposite sides of the war. Sirius knows Severus 
> supported Voldemort,

You make good points about there having been a war on, but Sirius 
DIDN'T know that Severus had supported Voldemort. GoF, "Padfoot 
Returns", page 461 of UK edition: "As far as I know, Snape was never 
even accused of being a Death Eater -- not that that means much." "I 
know Dumbledore trusts where a lot of other people wouldn't, but I 
just can't see him letting Snape teach at Hogwarts if he'd ever 
worked for Voldemort."

I don't understand how Sirius could possibly NOT know about Snape 
having been a Death Eater. Sirius was gathering information since his 
escape, and the Pensieve memory showed that Karkaroff had accused 
Snape, and Dumbledore had announced that Snape had been a Death Eater 
but come back to the Light Side, in front of dozens and dozens of 
people. How could word possibly NOT have gotten around?

By his own account, even in Azkaban, he heard the other prisoners, as 
they were going mad, screaming at Karkaroff for turning them in, and 
at Pettigrew for having gotten Voldemort destroyed. It doesn't make 
sense to me that they knew about Karkaroff naming names but not about 
Snape naming names, and knew that Pettigrew was V's spy but not that 
Snape had a place in the Death Eater circle. Surely very few Death 
Eaters knew about Pettigrew, or else one of them would have leaked 
word of him to MoM.

If one of the Death Eaters who had got free by naming names had named 
Pettigrew, or if the Dementors had reported to Fudge that prisoners 
were screaming against Pettigrew for leading Voldemort into his death 
trap... 

Cindy Sphynx wrote:

> Bonus question: if Dumbledore had been in the Shrieking Shack,
> would he have been willing to kill Peter like Lupin or would he
> have shown mercy without waiting for Harry to speak up? How about 
> McGonnagall?

Of course it would never even occur to Dumbledore to kill Pettigrew 
out of hand, as it was not a PERSONAL vengeance for Dumbledore. 
He would have cast Petrificus Totalus and Stupefy on Pettigrew 
and turned him over to appropriate representatives of the Department 
of Magical Law Enforcement. NOT to the Dementors. I think not even 
to Fudge, whose job description does not include escorting prisoners. 
McGonagall would do the same, as it happens to be the correct thing 
to do, but Dumbledore would have done it as the most elegant way to 
solve a number of problems (clearing Sirius, depriving Voldemort of a 
servant, etc) at once, not because of law.

I didn't realise until PIPPIN said it, but Dumbledore would also have 
awakened Snape and seen to it that Lupin drank his potion. 




From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  2 11:05:09 2002
From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 03:05:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Passwords
Message-ID: <20020202110509.14762.qmail@web21109.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34513

How do you think passageways like statues and
gargoyles change passwords? Live paintings can of
course do that and tell the password to those
concerned, but how about those 'unlive' structures?
Like the one leading to the Slytherin common room.

-Ron Yu

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com



From Edblanning at aol.com  Sat Feb  2 11:44:10 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 06:44:10 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] British vs English (was US/English versions)
Message-ID: <102.fef2c03.298d2b0a@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34514

In a message dated 01/02/02 22:15:14 GMT Standard Time, 
hollydaze at btinternet.com writes:
> 
> BRITISH VS ENGLISH
> Eloise wrote:
> > This whole discussion should be under the banner US/British versions. 
> > After all, they are both written in English, aren't they and it is 
> > extremely irritating to Scottish, Welsh and Irish Britons to be 
> > thought of as English. 
> 
> I always got the impression that (most) Scots, Welsh and Irish hated being 
> called British too and that was what devolution was about?
> 
> I presumed we were talking about the language rather than the countries 
> anyway and in those ways it is right as the British version is written in 
> *English* while the "American" version is in US English (hence US in the 
> title of the discussion)
> 
> 

Ouch! I find it interesting to have trodden on (?) English toes in this 
discussion.
The thing I am uncomfortable with in your last remark is that it suggests 
that we have the 'copyright' and that other types of English are 'versions 
of', whereas the English language actually has many different, equally valid 
forms . British English has after all also carried on developing since the 
days of the Founding Fathers and the differences in our two languages stem 
from this as much as from (for want of a better word) US developments. That 
is why I prefer in these contexts to speak of British English, rather than 
just English.

Otherwise, (you speak of the problems of casting characters as 'typically 
British'), I think we are making the same point. Yes, there are those in the 
UK who do not want to be 'British', but the point I was leading into and 
which you didn't quote is that many people seem to equate 'Britishness' with 
'Englishness' and this is simply inaccurate. In some contexts I feel very 
English (I  would be quite pro English devolution as a matter of fact!), in 
others British, in others European.

Eloise 


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




From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Sat Feb  2 12:53:30 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 12:53:30 -0000
Subject: US vs UK English
In-Reply-To: <a3gb9u+6l0a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3gnga+eo8c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34515

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" <catlady at w...> wrote:

> 
> Chappnee wrote:
> 
> > just like I loved finding out that Americans have different words 
> > for things like 'pop' in Canada on a cruise I went on. The poor boy
> > I was talking to mistook me for saying 'pot', as in the drug, until 
> > he realised I was pointing to my drink!
> 
> That stuff that Brits apparently call 'fizzy lemonade', causing 
> confusion when I told my friend I wanted lemonade and he brought me 
> Seven-Up instead; I should have said 'citronade'.

And watch out for bottled  "Victorian Lemonade," which I let my kids order at a 
tea room in London.  After they were halfway through, I checked the label and 
learned that it's slightly alcoholic!




From pat_mahony at hotmail.com  Sat Feb  2 05:05:31 2002
From: pat_mahony at hotmail.com (Patrick Mahony)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 05:05:31 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What does Voldemort fear?
Message-ID: <F94H3OjzWMkLqxMHXiw00012ee7@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34516

One thing about Voldy is his arrogance. He had just spent a good time 
taunting Harry, hoping to torture him before he died.
I think it's unlikely that Voldy was unaware of the reverse spell thingy. I 
think he was fearful, because he didn't think that Harry would have to 
strength to overpower him, and onw here he was forcing his wand to do things 
he didn't want it to.
I think also he may be fearful because now he knows that Harry has the 
brother wand. Maybe that has something to do with a prophecy that he has 
heard?
Just a thought
Patt


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





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  2 08:08:34 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 08:08:34 -0000
Subject: What does Voldemort fear?
In-Reply-To: <a3fn9d+gujo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3g6q2+a2t9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34517

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mellienel2" <mellienel2 at y...> wrote:
> > 
> > Discuss, please, and enlarge upon the idea ... I'd like to hear 
> what other 
> > people think!
> 
> 
Personally, I fell Vmort made the bad guy mistake of equating the 
ability to kill and cause damage with power. Dumbledore, on the other 
hand, values information as true power and was happy at learning 
Vmort used Harry's blood because he knows Vmort's weakness and saw 
his plan coming together. Vmort was fearful because he saw his plan 
coming apart.

Picture you're LV. You 'sell your soul' if you will for forbidden 
power. Thinking you are the heir of Slytherin, you may consider it 
your sacred duty to cleanse the world of muggles (in denial of your 
half-blood heritage) and roll over every foe until you face a 1 year-
old baby and deathspell destroys your body in a flash.

Eisting without a body for a decade you capture a foolish wizard 
almost a decade later and come within a hair of regaining a body and 
immortality when the same boy at ELEVEN YEARS OLD destroys you WITH A 
TOUCH!

The next year an incredibly intricate contingency plan fails at the 
last moment from the SAME BOY AGAIN!

You decide to pull out all the stops and put the wheels in motion to 
regain a body using the blood of the UNBELIEVABLE BOY. You lure the 
boy to your lair, gather your follows and regain your body. You test 
it, first touching the boy than casting Cruciatus on him and then in 
the climax to your plan face the Boy in a wizard's duel. BUT YOU 
OVERLOOK that you wands are from the same Phoenix!

Simply, Voldemort's in DENIAL, his mind twisted by megalomania 
ignoring the fact that he isn't God. The fear was Valdemort being 
shown his shortcomings and facing the unknown. He will almost 
certainly forget his failure soon after Harry escaped and plan his 
war. He may have to reformulate plan, checking his followers 
allegiance and gauging his foes weaknesses. 

So if you were an insane nearomnipotant Dark Lord, who would be your 
first target: Potter or Dumbledore? Where would your attack come 
through: Ministry of Magic? Giants? Maybe attack Hogwarts through 
Durmstrang?


"uncmark" 




From potter at jmaclabs.com  Sat Feb  2 10:48:33 2002
From: potter at jmaclabs.com (JM)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 02:48:33 -0800
Subject: Peter and Voldemort's wands.
Message-ID: <004801c1abd7$39060a20$ce64a8c0@jmaclabs.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34518

I saw this topic discussed without a clear answer so I thought I would throw in my own theory.

[Known Facts] 
Animagi retain their clothing when they transform. (References: McGonagall in the first chapter, in class, and Sirius retaining his Azkaban robes when Harry and group meet him outside Hogsmead)

Some wizards believe Voldemort was only biding his time and not dead/disappeared (Stated by Hagrid toward the beginning of book 1 talking to Harry)

[Big Theory]
Wormtail possibly accompanied Voldemort to Godric Hollow to murder Harry's parents. Given the complexity of the fidelius charm it seems like having someone to physically point out he house would be helpful.

When Voldemort was debodied Wormtail took his wand (and likely his robes or very very few wizards would even consider him not dead) and fled.

Wormtail corners (or is cornered by) Sirius with a well thought out plan in mind. He's carrying his wand, Voldemort's wand, and the wand of some other wizard. Lily or James makes some sense but whose doesn't matter. Voldemort's wand could seriously come in handy and since not visible as a rat isn't going to get him into any trouble. He's always looking out for himself right? Best he can get?

He's probably cut off his finger ahead of time (saves time) and has it with his own wand or perhaps even attatched to it. He drops his severed finger and his own wand, if he was particularly nasty he's even got an extra set of bloody torn robes to drop along with them. Screams at Sirius, blows up the street, and escapes with the stolen wand and Voldermort's wand.

Why all the wands? He keeps Voldemort's thinking maybe it'll do him some good. Another wizard's because as Amos Diggory points out in book 4 chapter 9 it's a clever thing to not use your own wand so it can't point to you. His own wand because it's a fairly good way to identify him none of the Muggles would have known who he was.

He ditches the stolen wand somewhere and carries on with Voldemort's wand perhaps even wearing Voldemort's clothing. A sense of power he would have if nothing else as he went into hiding.


The whole theory requires a few "What if?"s to make it work, but I think it's certainly plausible.

--
JM
I would prefer men ask of me why I do not have a statue, than why I have one.


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





From theennead at attbi.com  Sat Feb  2 11:34:30 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 11:34:30 -0000
Subject: Humor -- the Train Stomp -- Crouch Jr. and Sr. 
In-Reply-To: <a3fgm4+7umj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3gis6+v1hi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34519

On the Train Stomp, Cindy wrote:

> I had a different issue with that scene.  Bad guys kick their foe 
> then they are down and helpless and unconscious.  Good guys do what 
> they have to do and move on.  They do NOT curse people just for 
> saying something they don't like, stomp them, and then leave them 
> there powerless to rescue themselves.  

I share that issue.

No, there was nothing chivalrous about it at all, was there?  Five 
against three.  (And given that two of those three were Crabbe and
Goyle, perhaps we ought to call it 'five against one and a half?')  
Fred and George attacking from behind.  Not to mention the fact that, 
as far as I could tell, the Slyths hadn't even considered reaching 
for their wands.  

And that's before we even got to the *stomping.*

But then, Harry and friends *are* only fourteen years old, and the
verbal provocation was quite severe, and poor Harry had quite the
trauma-inducing year, so I'm willing to forgive them for it.  

Fred and George, however, are another matter.  They're seventeen 
years old, for heaven's sake!  By the standards of their culture, 
they're legal adults!  And they're hexing a bunch of fourteen-year-
olds in the back, stomping all over them while they're lying there 
unconscious, and then leaving them alone on a train in the middle
of London?  Where I come from, we had a word for older teens who
did stuff like that.  We called them "bullies."

Then, I've never much cared for the twins.  (Oh, boy. I'm *really*
not making myself popular here, am I?)  Playing their practical jokes 
on everyone.  Springing booby-trapped sweets on unsuspecting younger 
kids.  And *hissing* poor little eleven-year-old Malcolm Baddock at 
the Sorting Ceremony, just because he got sorted into Slytherin.  

That last is by far the worst, to my mind.  I mean, really!  What a 
rotten thing to do.  We've never seen even the Slyths hiss or jeer 
at anyone during the Sorting Ceremony.  Inappropriate.  Inappropriate,
and very mean-spirited.

And what a lovely way to start your school career.  I mean, can you 
imagine it?  Here you are, you're just a little kid, it's your very 
first day at Hogwarts, everything is incredibly intimidating, you're 
scared to death of this whole Sorting process, you put the hat on 
your head, it pronounces you a Slytherin, and then, just as you're 
beginning to feel that maybe this might not be so bad after all 
("Hey, those kids at that table are actually _clapping!_  For me!  
Cool!"), just when you're beginning to relax, that's when these two 
enormous red-headed louts over at another table -- and they're really 
*big* kids, too; they're big, and strong, and much *much* older than 
you -- they start to hiss at you.  As if they *hate* you, or 
something!  And you've never even *met* them before!

Sheesh.  Poor little Malcolm Baddock.

Me, I think the twins are a couple of cads.


> Maybe the train stomp scene is transitional and is designed to show 
> that this is an all-out war now?  I hope that's all it is supposed 
> to be.

I hope so, as well.  Like I said before, I really do find myself 
hoping that the train stomp -- like the nastiness of Draco's comment 
that prompted it -- was supposed to make the reader feel saddened
and wearied and concerned about the corrupting effects of all of this
hatred and violence on these terribly young people...

But I really don't think that it was.  I've a horrible suspicion that
JKR actually intended for the payback to be a feel-good moment for
us.

If so, then it sure didn't work on me.  I found it...grim.

I wrote:

> It makes me laugh to see people desperately struggling to extricate 
> themselves from impossible or embarrassing or even potentially 
> lethal situations.  I don't know quite what this is called, but I 
> tend to think of it as the primary comedic attribute of Farce.  

Cindy said:

> Hmmm.  I'm trying to think of examples of this from canon.  

Well, Gwen (I believe) classified the Yule Ball sequences as
"romantic comedy," but I see many aspects of farce there as well.
Ron and Harry's attempts to find dates, and the inevitability that
they are going to embarrass themselves in thie endeavor, qualifies
as farcical to my mind.

But the classic farce scene in GoF, which I'm appalled to notice that 
I actually forgot to mention last time around, comes in the "Egg and 
the Eye" chapter, when Harry gets stuck in the trick stair under his
invisibility cloak and has to try to get himself out of the situation 
while dealing with Snape, Filch *and* Fake Moody, all of whom are
themselves pursuing their own agenda.  

I love that scene.  It's got everything.  It has Harry's predicament, 
which is fundamentally absurd, yet compelling.  It has dreadfully 
mistaken characters insisting on their version of events at the top 
of their lungs ("I'm telling you, it was Peeves!").  It has some 
variants on mistaken identity -- who *has* been breaking into Snape's 
office, anyway?  And where the devil is Bartemius Crouch?  It has (on 
rereading) all of Crouch's sly double-edged comments.  And it also 
has a secondary dilemma, also only visible on second reading, in 
Crouch's own predicament: his reaction to the Marauder's Map, the 
near-miss aspect of Harry's fingering him (or, rather, his father) as 
the mysterious intruder in Snape's office.

And on top of all of that, it also falls back on that old farce stand-
by of allowing us to see ordinarily dignified characters wandering 
around in their night-clothes.  That's a classic.  You can just never 
go wrong with that one.  

> One is Pettigrew trying to talk his way out of trouble, as you 
> mention.  Another is Harry trying to escape from the graveyard.  

Harry trying to escape from the graveyard does fit my description,
but I didn't find it farcical at all -- it just wasn't written that
way.  Of course, the question of "how something is written" is always
a rather difficult one -- it's a question of nuance, and of tone, and
thus totally subjective.  Hmmm.  Let's see if I can manage this...

Shrieking Shack, deadly serious though it may have been in some ways, 
also had quite a few farcical elements: Pettigrew's repeated "Yes!  
There! You see?" comments every time one of the kids makes an 
argument in his favor, for example, or the humor implicit in his 
appealing to Ron on the grounds that "I was a good pet" (when in fact
the notion that Scabbers was an utterly unsatisfactory pet has been 
emphasized repeatedly throughout the rest of the book), or the 
painfully obvious way in which he appeals to each and every person in 
the room (one at a time, as if he's following some sort of official
"supplication by the numbers" manual), or the way that he keeps
changing his story, looking for an exit strategy.

Harry's duel with Voldemort, though...well, I just didn't see any 
elements of farce there.  Yes, Harry did want quite desperately to 
escape from the situation, but there's no touch of the absurd there, 
as there is in Shrieking Shack, and there's no point at which his
desperation becomes...well, funny.  He doesn't resort to any 
ridiculous lengths, or attempt anything utterly untenable, or...

Well, gah.  Humor is hard to define.  It's more a matter of tone, I 
think, then of anything else.

> I think for me to be amused by a character squirming in a tight 
> spot, the tight spot can't be a matter of life or death.  

<nods>  Farce usually keeps the stakes lower than life or death, and 
for just that reason.  I think that most people stop finding it funny 
once it starts to get too grim.

<Crouch/Moody, stomping in to announce the plot right after Harry's
name spits out of the Goblet>

> On a re-read, I was amused by just how brazen Moody is.  He walks 
> right in and gives away half of the plot twist, and I didn't 
> believe it.  Nope.  I wasn't buying anything Moody said in that 
> scene.

Crouch Jr. was just such an utter *show-off.*  It's one of the things 
that I found so very appealing about him.

> Really?  Crouch Jr. was kind of a flat-liner for me.  I mean, he 
> was great as Moody, but I didn't get a real sense for him 
> individually.  

I liked him for the way that he was constantly entertaining himself 
by making all of those sly double-edged comments that no one else
(except the re-reader) could possibly ever appreciate.  I enjoyed 
both his sense of irony and his sense of malice, and the pure and 
simple glee that he seemed to take in combining the two.  I found 
the fact that he really did seem to be having a whole lot of fun
with this mission -- this whole masquerading as Moody thing was
the greatest thing since sliced bread so far as he was concerned;
he was just having a *blast* with it -- to be curiously endearing, 
even refreshing.  

And I think that he really enjoyed teaching the DADA classes as 
well.  I'm convinced that Crouch could have been a damned fine 
teacher himself, if only his life had gone...well, very differently.

I also found his acting talent extremely impressive and found it 
interesting to contemplate the extent to which his ability to immerse 
himself so fully in his role might not have been an effect of having 
spent over a decade effectively stripped of any real identity of his 
own -- enslaved, invisible, presumed dead, permitted to speak to no 
one but (shudder) Winky.  

<Sudden image of Barty Crouch, staring blankly at himself in the 
mirror between Polyjuice doses and murmering to himself: "But what's 
my motivation here?  I mean, really now: what's my *motivation?*>

I felt a certain sympathy for him, too, even though he was admittedly
a very evil fellow.  His insistence on viewing Voldemort as his Good
Daddy figure was just so very *pathetic.*  


> And now that you mention it, I gather that we are not supposed to 
> like Crouch Sr., but I liked him well enough.  I guess we're not 
> supposed to like him because he spent too much time at the office, 
> and because he gave his son a rather truncated trial.  

Me, I don't care about 'too much time at the office.'  But I do think 
that the man was a hypocrite and a control-freak, and that he wasn't
terribly clear on the entire notion of a child as an individual 
person, rather than as an extension of the parent's identity.  I also 
think that what he did to his son was considerably more cruel than 
just leaving him to die in Azkaban would have been.

That said, I also think that (whatever young Barty himself might have 
thought on the matter), Crouch Elder did genuinely *believe* that he 
loved his son.  I'm just not certain that he really *got* the whole 
love thing, at least when it came to his own child.

> Really, 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?

Mmmm.  Well, as you know, Cindy, I'm decidedly squicky on the 
subject of the Imperius Curse.  But all the same, it still seems
to me that stripping your no-account, good-for-nothing, disgrace-to-
the-family-name offspring of all personal volition, rendering him
completely invisible, denying him all human contact, and keeping him
locked in your kitchen is...well, that isn't exactly *mercy,* is it?

That isn't mercy at all.  That's stripping someone of all of the 
signifiers of personal identity, and then just keeping them around
as a kind of robot.  It's preserving the form, while denying the
essence.  It's almost like a lesser manifestation of the Dementor's 
Kiss.

I read it as fairly symbolic, myself.  Crouch always viewed his son 
as an extension of his own identity, and so when his son rebelled 
against him by turning to the Dark Side, he first tried to sever the 
tie ("You are not my son!") and then, when that didn't work out for 
him, he chose instead to use the Imperius Curse to render the boy 
*incapable* of being anything but an extension of his own identity.

You know what they say about all unhappy families...


> I'll definitely cut Crouch Sr. a break, but not Crouch Jr.

Aw, hell.  I'm happy to slather on the slack for them both.  After 
all, one of them's dead, and the other is worse than dead, and
they didn't leave anyone else to carry on their twisted family
legacy, so why hold grudges?



--- Elkins






From lav at tut.by  Sat Feb  2 11:43:05 2002
From: lav at tut.by (Alexander)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 13:43:05 +0200
Subject: Potterverse: Social Psychology - Wizarding Genetics
Message-ID: <165924416.20020202134305@tut.by>

No: HPFGUIDX 34520

  Greetings!

  Two little works of mine. Note please that I'm neither a
social psychologist, nor a genetic engineer. I'm just a
programmer who has or had both these subjects as his hobby.
So please be kind with me. And of course, if there are real
social psychologists, genetic engineers etc etc on the List,
feedback is most welcome.

------------------------------------------------------------

      WIZARDING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

  So far, Muggle World has created only two social theories
that got publicly accepted. These are Marxism (or, in
Asimov's spelling, psychohistory) and Hero/Crowd Theory.

  The problem with social analysis is the complexity of the
subject. Marxist approach considers society as a whole and
tries to define certain laws concerning it's development and
existence. It is declared that ruler has little to none
power to influence his country. Hero/Crowd Theory, on the
other hand, considers that some individuals due to certain
reasons have major impact on society development.

  Both system have proven to work correctly and make correct
predictions, Marxism being more accurate in long-term
predictions. So we can accept that both systems are true,
and assume that:

  1) In stabile times, individual has little to no power to
influence his country, or rather the society will always
have a leader that will follow present course voluntarily.
Those leaders incapable of that will be removed.
  2) In crisis times, influence of a single individual on
the history becomes tremendous.

  In both cases, we can reasonably assume that psychology of
the ruler has a tight connection to the social psychology.

  From this point of view persona of Cornelius Fudge is of
great interest.

  We have little information about him, of course. But what
we know for sure is that he is conservative. In fact, this
seems to be his primary personality trait. Was it induced by
Wizarding society, or was it induced on Wizarding society by
Fudge himself is beyond our analysis and is not really
interesting.

  So we have come to conclusion that modern trend of the
Wizarding World is conservatism.

  This fits very well with what we know about recent history
of the Wizarding World. At present moment, security perhaps
is the greatest value from the point of view of most wizards
who have power.

  But this doesn't fit very well with other theories.

  Especially with Theory of Wizard Toughness.

  So far we have all rights to assume that wizards are much
tougher, surviving and just plain lucky than muggles. We
have pretty much evidence on that.

  What this essentially means is that wizards will consider
physical danger much more lightheartedly than muggles. From
what we know, wizard children have no reliable access to
magic during their first 10 years of life. So we can
reasonably assume that their upbringing will be much like
that of muggle children.

  Only that facing less physical risk wizard children will
be much more reckless.

  What adults will grow of such children? We can assume that
they will become more adventurous and more prone to taking
risks. And we have ample evidence of this conclusion as well
what leads us to the next statement:

  Wizarding World in general is much more adventurous and
prone to risk-taking than Muggle World.

  Here we come to contradiction. We have a conservative
community of risk takers. Surely something that cannot exist
for long.

  Or can it?

  Of course, social strain will be great in the Wizarding
World. We can suppose that many conflicts which would become
a subject of hot debate in Muggle World will turn into real
wars in the Wizarding World.

  So we come to the final conclusion. Wizarding World exists
in a state of permanent war. Something similar to Orwell's
"1984". Of course we don't mean that Wizarding World social
system mirrors that of "1984". But certain similarity exists
and must be kept in mind.

  Now we can consider the eternal struggle of good and evil
in the Wizarding World from an entirely different point of
view. Instead of a mystical ancient conflict it becomes a
social regulator of sorts. A war becomes an integral part
of the society.

  Conservatism of the ruling circles is easily explained by
this theory. Indeed, it is only logical that conservatives
rule the community. Society that has chaos at it's roots
will always try to get as much order as possible.

------------------------------------------------------------

      WIZARDING GENETICS

  In this research we will try to cover the subject of
magical power aquisition and inheritance. We will also try
to make a reasonable guess about what magical powers are.

  First of all, we reject immediately all ideas about magic
being unexplainable. Of course we understand that this is
quite possible, but this theory is non-positive and will not
provide us any help. On the other hand, even a wrong theory
may help us better than complete absence of such. At the
very least it may give us an impulse for further research.

  So far only two theories have been proposed that try to
explain the existance and inheritance of magical power.
These two are Genetic Theory and Chaos Theory.

    Genetic Theory

  We make an initial assumption that magical talent is
controlled by some gene or set of genes. In other words, we
assume that wizards do have no differences from muggles but
in their genetic code.

  So far, so good. What genes, then?

  First of all, we can reasonably assume that Wizarding Gene
(called WG in the text) is the dominant. This conclusion
springs immediately from the statistics of wizard-muggle
marriages: so far no wizard born from a muggle and a wizard
has reported to have non-magical brothers and sisters.

  Second, magical talent is controlled not by a single pair
of chromosomes (like gender), but by a set of them. This
conclusion we draw from the facts that: a) wizards sometimes
appear in completely non-magical families, and b) single
dominant gene would manifest itself in one of the parents at
least.

  Also we must remember about Creavey Case. In a non-magical
family both children were born with magical talent. We can
reasonably assume that both Creavey parents have parts of
the magical genes set heterotyped (doubled). From this we
can also expect most of Creavey children to posess magical
talent. If this conclusion will be supported by long-term
research, this will become a significant proof of the
theory.

  Another conclusion is that if some muggle family has a
wizarding child, we can expect them to have partial magical
parentage themselves, if often lost in the ages.

  About rarity of squibs.

  So far we know that Wizarding World experiences a large
amount of muggle-blood injections. This probably has some
connection with the fact that magican genetic patterns have
certain influence on either reproduction abilities or
behavioral patterns (more probably former). Hence we can
assume a relatively large percent of muggle genes in the
Wizarding World genetic pool. Even with dominant magical
genes we should expect a relatively large percent of squibs.
But this doesn't seem to be the case.

  This can only happen if whole genetic pattern is not
required for a child to be magically talented. That is, even
a part of magical genes is enough. Whether this means that
the child is less talented or powerful or it's not the case
should be researched further.

    Chaos Theory

  This theory assumes that magical talent has little to none
connection with the genetics. Instead, human brain patterns
are considered to be the source of magic.

  Initial assumption is that human brain is the accumulator
of Chaos/Order energy. Concentration of extremely large
amount of information disrupts the information structure of
the Universe, and this fact can result in non-mundane
effects - the so-called "spells". Modern science does not
reject such opportunity entirely, and this has already been
covered in lots of science-fiction books.

  Here we assume that for the magical talent to be present,
human must have a certain brain pattern. Given the fact that
most spells we know about require verbal and somatic actions
to be cast, we can suppose with a reasonable degree of
certainty that this patterns have close connection with
verbal speech brain centers and motion-control brain
centers. This also fits very well with the fact that only a
few of wizards are able to cast spells without spelling the
incantation. This probably comes from the fact that for the
spell to be cast, appropriate information structure must be
created in the caster's brain. It's easy to see that a
person not trained to "turn-off" his/her brain centers will
speak the spell aloud (even if sub-consciously). Russian
experiments in the late 60'ies proved that a person can be
trained to control it's blood pressure and heart beat rate,
though trainee can not explain how he does it. We assume
that similar process of second level biological feedback
link exists in this case, too.

  Inheritance of magical powers is tied to genetics, of
course. Similarity of brain centers becomes however
something more like a phenotype similarity (a child often
looks similar to one or both of parents), and this can
happen even to non-magical parents, in this case appropriate
brain pattern is created randomly.

  This means that: a) muggle parents that have a magical
talented child may have no magical blood in their veins, and
b) that squibs are muggles by definition.

------------------------------------------------------------

  So? Any more ideas? :)

Sincerely yours,
Alexander Lomski,
(Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed),
who thinks boa-constrictor will return in later books, to be
a husband for Nagini and draw her to the Good side... :)

    One must be a complete paranoic to search for the
    hedgehog at the top of a fir tree.
        Pavel Shumilov.





From NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com  Sat Feb  2 14:45:17 2002
From: NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com (NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:45:17 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] UK HP books on tape?
Message-ID: <cd.128aec26.298d557d@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34521

Two days ago I ordered the 4 paperback set from Amazon UK because I too 
wanted to read the 'originals' which I could not find in the US. (I'm in 
Wisconsin.)  In fact, the fourth book isn't even available here as a PB yet.  
I just used my debit card...it will come airmail in a couple days!  Its quite 
easy to do, and not very expensive.  I think about $33 with postage.
~shahara

shahara lefay
pagan priestess 
**serendipitously smitten with severus snape**



From hollydaze at btinternet.com  Sat Feb  2 14:32:11 2002
From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 14:32:11 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What does Voldemort fear?
References: <a3fn95+ton2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00c301c1abf9$ed4038e0$96407bd5@j0dhe>

No: HPFGUIDX 34522

Jo Ellen wrote:

<SNIP>
> Obviously the wizards consider the spirit as an 
> immortal being because ghosts are roaming Hogwarts. Evidently, this 
> wasn't what Voldy had in mind as an acceptable immortal form. I think 
> the fear factor in seeing the spirits of the his murder victims being 
> ejected from the wand was not the spirits, themselves,  that 
> frightened old Voldy. 
<SNIP>

This got me thinking actually. LV doesn't strike me as a very happy person. He doesn't care about love or any other such feelings at all. SO I hardly think he is happy anyway. JK Rowling has said that unhappy people become ghosts when they die (and that there is more to it that we will find out in a later book, both 5 and 7 have been mentioned).

As both books were mentioned by JK Rowling, not rumours could it mean that she changed her mind. That LV becoming a ghost is one of the things that the "good guys" will have to look into and how to stop it, and that that is how Harry (and us) find out about ghosts? That would explain why it was in book seven. She may have changed it to earlier (book 5) in respect of these "unanswered" questions that Harry is going to ask, perhaps something about why his parents didn't become ghosts and then that will relate into some other stuff in book 6 or 7 (as above - how to stop LV becoming a ghost!)





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




From hollydaze at btinternet.com  Sat Feb  2 14:58:20 2002
From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 14:58:20 -0000
Subject: British vs English (was US/English versions)
References: <102.fef2c03.298d2b0a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <00c901c1abfa$0eb681a0$96407bd5@j0dhe>

No: HPFGUIDX 34523

Eloise wrote:
> > > This whole discussion should be under the banner US/British 
> > > versions. After all, they are both written in English, aren't they 
> > > and it is extremely irritating to Scottish, Welsh and Irish 
> > > Britons to be thought of as English. 

I wrote:
> > I always got the impression that (most) Scots, Welsh and Irish hated 
> > being called British too and that was what devolution was about?I 
> > presumed we were talking about the language rather than the 
> > countries anyway and in those ways it is right as the British 
> > version is written in *English* while the "American" version is in 
> > US English (hence US in the title of the discussion).

Eloise wrote:
<SNIP>
> The thing I am uncomfortable with in your last remark is that it 
> suggests that we have the 'copyright' and that other types of English 
> are 'versions of', whereas the English language actually has many 
> different, equally valid forms.
<SNIP>
 
Just to explain myself there. I wasn't exactly sure hwo to express what I meant, so I kinda used the thing that Microsoft has on it's wordcheck where you select the langauge you wish to spell check, it has "US English" or something very similar and I wasn't sure what else to refer to it as. I didn't want to say "American" since a lot of Canadians on the site have recently said they find that offensive since everyone who lives inthe continent of America is an American, I thereofre presumed the same applied to language as surely anything spoken IN the contenent of America could be classed as American!

<SNIP>
> British English has after all also carried on developing since the 
> days of the Founding Fathers and the differences in our two languages > stem from this as much as from (for want of a better word) US 
> developments. That is why I prefer in these contexts to speak of 
> British English, rather than just English.
<SNIP>
Hence the reason I wrote *English* instead of English.

HOLLYDAZE!!!


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




From cindysphynx at home.com  Sat Feb  2 14:55:52 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 14:55:52 -0000
Subject: Age Line (WAS VITTLES, the HP bestiary, irony vs sarcasm, counselling)
In-Reply-To: <010b01c1abae$f222a320$4422ddcb@price>
Message-ID: <a3gulo+f5i2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34524

uncmark wrote:

> > I'm surprised the Hogwart's crew wasn't more creative in Goblet 
of 
> Fire. Did anyone try anything but age potions?
> 
Tabouli added:

> Yeah, I noticed that myself.  A poor effort.  You'd think at least 
>the Slytherins could have come up with something a bit craftier.  
>Mind you, it's Dumbledore's imagination they're pitting themselves 
>against here... something tells me the big D is a creative chap...
 

Oh, I don't know.  Frankly, I think the younger students were just 
blowing smoke and didn't really want to compete in the Tournament.  
That would have required immense talent beyond one's years, at the 
risk of being burned alive by a dragon or skrewt, drowned, etc.  It 
makes some sense that only Fred and George would have tried it, as 
they are Brave Gryffindors.  

It is hard to believe that a student could come up with something 
clever enough to get past anything protection Dumbledore set up.  No, 
it takes a serious psychopath like Fake Moody to handle that.

Cindy (screwing up her courage to mount a strident defense of Fred 
and George)





From theennead at attbi.com  Sat Feb  2 14:38:47 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 14:38:47 -0000
Subject: Tough Peter (Was Real Wizards Aren't Squeamish )
In-Reply-To: <a3decb+m6qo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3gtln+pl9h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34525

Cindy wrote:

>  Oh, gee.  What was that weird fluttering sensation?  It felt
>  suspiciously like a pang of sympathy for Peter.

<For just a moment, a Gleam of Triumph may be seen in Elkins' eyes>

<It is quickly suppressed.>

Oh, I shouldn't worry too much about that odd little sensation if I 
were you, Cindy.  It's really only when you start to feel the blood 
trickling down that you need to become concerned, you know.

Trust me.


>  Is Peter Tough?  Yes, because he cut off his own hand and 
>  considering that this probably hurt a bit, he handled it as well 
>  as could be expected.  No, because he does a fair amount of 
>  sniveling in the Shrieking Shack.  Yes, because he cut off his own 
>  finger.  No, because he does a fair amount of sniveling in the 
>  graveyard.  Yes, because he outsmarted Sirius.  The dial on the 
>  Toughmeter is whipping around because it can't get a reading on 
>  Peter at all.  I have to think of some other way to size up Peter.

Problem is, you've got two different types of Toughness there, maybe 
even more.

If you mean Tough in the sense of Able To Do What Needs To Be Done, 
then I'd say that he's extremely tough.  When he has a job to do, he
does it.  He may not like it much, but he does not balk and he does
not hesitate.  He gets it done.  It's not just that he manages to cut 
off his own hand that impresses me, frankly, but that he cuts off his 
own hand in the middle of what looks to be a rather tricky piece of 
ritual magic -- and then, by God, he *completes* it.  He may be 
sobbing in pain, but he doesn't allow himself to actually *collapse* 
until he's finished the job.  So, yeah.  In that way, I think that 
he's pretty tough.

Or, if by Tough you mean "capable of swift and decisive action, even
when it places him at personal risk," well...he's Tough in that way,
too.  Peter's not really a coward at all, in the most common 
definition of that term.  His framing of Sirius took a lot of guts, 
yes, but his escape at the end of PoA?  Now, *that* required nerves of
*steel!*  

I know that if *I'd* just had as narrow a brush with death as Peter 
had, and then I'd been told "well...okay, Elkins.  We'll take you up 
to the castle now.  But just so you know: if you so much as *think* 
about transforming, then we really *are* going to kill you.  You got 
that?" then I would never, not ever, not in a million years have been
able to seize an unexpected opportunity for escape the way that Peter
did.  Nope.  No way.  Not even to avoid Azkaban.  Not even if I 
thought they were going to give me the *Kiss* for what I'd done.  I 
still wouldn't be able to bring myself to take the risk.  I'd just be 
far too cowed.

But Peter isn't.  He isn't nerveless, and he isn't unwilling to take 
risks.  He's Tough in that way, too.

I think that what might be giving Cindy her headache here, though, is
that Peter is definitely *not* Tough in the sense of being stoic.  He
isn't a stoic at all.  He lacks pride, and I don't really think that 
he has very much in the way of emotional control, either.  In short, 
he's a cry-baby.  I get the impression that he's simply not terribly 
concerned with that type of personal dignity.  If pleading or 
snivelling or grovelling seems likely to help him, then he feels no 
particular shame in doing so; and he's not going to bother to try to 
choke back his screams or sobs or moans when Voldie smacks him with a 
Cruciatus, or when he's just cut his own hand off with some evil Dark 
ritual blade.  Why on earth should he?  It really *hurts,* dammit!

And you know, I've some respect for that, actually.  It takes a 
certain type of courage to display so little pride.

I also do think that Peter's a moral coward.  But I don't know if
that has any bearing on "Toughness."  It certainly does on the 
question of *courage,* but that's a slightly different matter.


Donna, who can picture Peter crying and grovelling, while the inner 
Peter is thinking *Suckers!*, wrote:

> After reading both Elkins' and Cindy's posts, I think Peter is 
> tough.  I see Peter's snivelling as something that's worked very 
> well for him in the past, so why wouldn't he keep using it?  

I would agree that he certainly is a manipulative little man, and 
I'm sure that he knows how to turn on the waterworks when he thinks
that it might get him something.  I don't know if I believe that's 
all there is to the snivelling, though.  

In the Shrieking Shack, Peter really doesn't seem to be very skilled 
at controlling his fear responses, even when doing so *would* have
benefitted his cause.  His sweating and trembling and darty eye 
movements and the like don't inspire Harry's confidence in the 
veracity of his tale, and I doubt that they helped him much with 
Remus either.  I suspect that he's just not very good at controlling 
such things.  Maybe he can switch the waterworks *on* at will, but I 
somehow doubt that he knows how to turn them *off.*

> When Sirius cornered him after the Potters' deaths, he judged that 
> it wouldn't work on Sirius on this occasion and didn't even try. He 
> worked very coolly, cutting his finger off, and accusing Sirius 
> without hesitating. If he was a true coward, I think he couldn't
> have helped crying and begging first, claiming to be under the 
> Imperius Curse.

I'll bet he was shaking, though.  And probably sweating.  And 
breathing hard.

His apparent terror right before he performs Voldie's rebirthing
ritual serves no manipulative purpose that I can see, and yet he's
quite clearly scared out of his gourd there.  I agree with you that 
he's both manipulative and Tougher Than He Looks, but I don't think 
that he's exactly on top of his physiological fear responses.

But on this topic, I've always wondered why Peter didn't take that 
approach with Sirius in the first place.  He already knows that 
Voldemort has mysteriously vanished, and he may even already know
that the other DEs are starting to mutter things about him having
betrayed their master to his doom.  So wouldn't you think that it 
would make more sense, from a strategic standpoint, to try to get 
back in with the winning side while the getting's good, rather than
going into hiding for thirteen years?

Do you think Sirius really would have killed him right there on the
street if he'd burst into tears and choked out some sob story about
how the evil Death Eaters tortured him horribly, and hard as he tried 
he just couldn't withstand them, and so he betrayed Lily and James, 
and now he'll never forgive himself for being such a useless, 
hopeless, impotent wretch, and would Sirius just kill him now, 
please, quickly, and put him out of his guilt-racked misery?

Hell.  That's what I think that *I* would have done, had I been in 
Peter's position.

The fact that Peter didn't go for that approach makes me suspect 
that he figured that Sirius probably really would kill him if he 
tried it -- which in turn makes me think some rather nasty things 
about Sirius Black and his infamous temper, honestly. (Sorry, Cindy.)


> Although he does whine in front of Voldemort, I don't believe he 
> does it with him for the same reason. I think it's a useful 
> strategy because it draws V's contempt.  V is too dismissive of him 
> to see him as much of a threat (unlike Malfoy). 

He's not all that bad when he speaks to Voldemort, actually. I mean, 
except for those times when Voldemort is actually threatening him, or 
torturing him, or ignoring him while he slowly bleeds to death...

Well, okay, so that's most of the times that we've seen them 
together.  But still.  When Peter actually wants something from 
Voldemort -- when he's trying to convince him to use someone other 
than Harry in the rebirthing ritual, for example, or when he's 
registering his doubts over the plans as they stand, or even when he's
reminding him of his promise in the graveyard -- he actually uses a
comparatively normal tone.  It's not exactly dignified, but it isn't
his full-blown Snivel Mode either.

I think he's smart enough to realize that if the tone gets too 
snivelly, no one really listens to the content.  


Back to Cindy, who asked:

> What the heck made him betray the Marauders?

I tend to go along with the poor opinion of his ex-friends on this
one.  I think that he wanted to be on the winning side of the war, 
and he guessed wrong.


> Why was he so reluctant to proceed with the plan in the beginning
> of GoF?

I'm not sure.  But it certainly was a rather...far-fetched plan, 
wasn't it?  Rather baroque, and over-complicated, and full of places
where things could have gone horribly awry?  And it involved relying
on the abilities of young Barty Crouch, who as it turned out was quite
competent in his role, but who was also a complete and utter lunatic 
who'd spent the past ten years locked up in his father's house, under 
the Imperius, and wrapped up in a *cloak.*

I wouldn't have had much confidence in the plan either, truth be told.
I mean, it's one of those crazed villain plans, isn't it?  It's a 
nutter plan.  You'd have to be as mad as young Crouch to think it a 
good plan.  You'd have to be as crazed as...well, as Voldemort.

But of course, poor Peter couldn't really say *that*, now, could he?  
So he did his best.


> Does he *really* want Voldemort restored, or is he just doing that
> because he has nowhere else to go?

Well, after the events of PoA he probably figured that not only Sirius
and Remus, but also the Ministry of Magic would be out looking to 
hunt him down.  It probably didn't even occur to him that the 
Ministry would fail to acquit Sirius.  So from his perspective, there 
are going to be Aurors out looking for him, and now they'll all know 
that he's an animagus, they'll have descriptions of his rat form as
well as his human form, and...

Yeah.  I think he assumes that Voldie getting restored and seizing 
power is just about his only chance of ever having any sort of life.
Sadly, he's probably right.

Also, I suspect that after thirteen years of life as Scabbers -- 
being manhandled by grubby little Weasley children, shoved into their 
lint-filled pockets, fed on table scraps, used as the test subject for
the twins' pranks, dressed up in Ginny's doll's clothes -- it had to 
feel good to finally have someone to *talk* to for a change.  

I mean, okay, so that person happens to be the Great Evil Dark Lord 
Who Must Not Be Named, who's currently trapped in an only partially
corporated state.  It's not really like having a *friend* or 
anything.  It's not even as if the two of you ever have real 
conversations.  Mainly what happens is that he says things, and then 
you agree with them -- if you know what's good for you.  He's abusive 
and contemptuous and cruel, and you know full well that he doesn't 
really like you -- he doesn't like *anyone,* and even if he did, it 
sure wouldn't be *you* -- and in fact, he's probably planning on 
killing you the instant you no longer serve his purposes.  

But all the same, you know, at least it's adult company.

And besides, right now he actually *needs* you.  Which is kind of 
nice, you know.  Someone needing you.  Especially when it's someone 
who may someday be Very Powerful Indeed.

Pathetic, it is.  Just pathetic.  But Peter certainly does get sulky 
enough whenever Voldemort starts going on about his *good* servants, 
his *loyal* servants, doesn't he?  Petulant, even.  Jealous.  I think 
he's headed for empty nest syndrome ("My little Baby Who Must Not Be 
Named, all grown up, doesn't need me anymore...").  He's going to be 
reminiscing wistfully about those fine old pre-Bertha Jorkins days, 
when it was just the two of them (well...and the snake), out there in 
the Albanian wilderness...


--- Elkins, getting slightly loopy as the hour grows late.





From muridae at muridae.co.uk  Sat Feb  2 14:59:59 2002
From: muridae at muridae.co.uk (Muridae)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 14:59:59 +0000
Subject: Lupin and the need to leave lesson plans for a substitute teacher
In-Reply-To: <a3clu1+n9fb@eGroups.com>
References: <a3cgle+km84@eGroups.com> <a3clu1+n9fb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <X4Hv2jIv7$W8EwpA@muridae.co.uk>

No: HPFGUIDX 34526

moongirlk wrote:

>--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
>> He doesn't leave a lesson plan for his sub though he knows he'll be
>> absent.
>
>Drat again, can't justify this one except as a plot device to get
>werewolves on the agenda.

On the other hand... maybe he didn't anticipate not being able to teach 
those lessons himself? There's no mention of him being ill or away 
during termtime other than this once, plus the absence from Christmas 
dinner. His absence comes as a complete surprise to the kids, which 
implies that it's likely something that's not happened before. And it 
takes place in *November*, which means that Lupin's managed to struggle 
through two full moons already. It's unlikely that he was absent in 
September, since at the time the kids are enthusing about how much they 
enjoy his lessons and it would have been noteworthy if one had been 
cancelled. And he was certainly around in October, since Harry witnessed 
him taking his potion... and was suspicious enough that Snape might be 
attempting to poison him that any subsequent absence would have been 
commented upon.

It could well be that the side effects of taking the potion are variable 
in their intensity, and that while it laid him out for several days on 
those two occasions, most months he just felt a little queasy or groggy 
but was able to carry on with his normal routine enough to keep up 
public appearances.

I think that the incapacitating side-effects of the potion *must* have 
been unanticipated to some extent. However easy going and generous 
spirited he is, Dumbledore would have been unlikely to hire Lupin as 
DADA teacher if it was a given that he'd be off sick one week in four.

-- 
Muridae



From lucy at luphen.co.uk  Sat Feb  2 09:09:16 2002
From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 09:09:16 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Animagus thoughts (RATS!) / SHIP RH / TR vs LV
References: <a3ejcl+17qu@eGroups.com> <001001c1ab59$b0c4a180$0b01a8c0@enet.com>
Message-ID: <004001c1abc9$6cc96a40$b0ae1e3e@stephen>

No: HPFGUIDX 34527

>Gabriel said:

>Okay, I've been keeping quiet on this whole thing, but I've got to react to this. I'm a pet rat breeder, and as such have done ENORMOUS amounts of research on both domestic and wild rats, and this whole thing is a bunch of unfortunate and untrue sterotyping. Rats are highly social, very intelligent, loving animals. They live in groups, will sacrifice themselves for the good of the colony, and mourn their dead. They are wonderful parents, and they are one of the VERY few rodents who can be kept with males together in a cage who don't kill each other... male rats form very tight social bonds, as do females. Parent-child bonds are the strongest, and even the males make great parents. Also, rats almost NEVER bite. You have to really hurt, scare or corner one to get it to bite you. I was thrilled when Scabbers showed up in the first book. Good press for pet rats, YAY!

>Then PoA came along. *sigh*

I know, I used to have pet rats (but my boyfriend didn't like them, and I think they're cute. Though I must say I prefer hamsters! Russian hamsters will live together happily as well.

But don't dispair, there were other rats in PoA besides Scabbers. There were the cute black rats playing the skipping game in the shop!

Lucy the Drifty




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




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Sat Feb  2 18:34:52 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 18:34:52 -0000
Subject: About Ron (not shipping)
In-Reply-To: <40.1885e702.298c9744@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a3hbgc+2kh0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34528

I've heard this a lot, and as, the oldest child of 8 children, I 
cannot agree. First of all, we see nothing wrong with Ron's magical 
supplies other than his wand being hypothetically wrong for him. 
Personally, I think this was an ill-worked out characterization 
detail of JKR's. The wand only really goes wrong after he breaks it, 
and refuses to tell his parents about it, just as I broke my glasses 
in Grade 7 and kept it secret from my parents for a couple months. 

As for the clothes, you may prefer spiffy new clothes to trips to 
Egypt, but frankly, I don't. Having 8 children in the house means 
that I've always worn hand-me-downs, and second-hand clothes. Like 
Ron, it bothered me sometimes, but I completely approved of our 
family's preference for taking long summer vacations to Alaska, 
California, the Grand Canyon, Ontario etc. It's either new clothes or 
good vacations in our house, and I vote heartily (with the Weasleys) 
for vacations! 

Magically altering robes does not, for some strange reason, work in 
the Harry Potter world, in the same way that cosmetic surgery doesn't 
seem to exist anywhere. I don't think JKR thought out that one.

As for Ron, not having any attention paid to him, I always thought 
that was just his insecurity. I doubt very much that the parents pay 
way more attention to their older boys. I doubt it especially when I 
notice that the other Weasley child who seems to feel that they're 
not being paid attention to is Percy. Over and over again, he is 
always trying to get his family's attention, and feels that he is 
unappreciated. We know this is wrong for Percy, why do we accept 
Ron's version of things so quickly. All the evidence of favouritism 
we've seen in the house boils down to Percy, who has been made a 
prefect, getting a pet owl from his parents. To call that favouritism 
would be as if my younger brothers complained that my grandparents 
gave me some money on graduation. 

Eileen

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., NOTaMuggleFamily at a... wrote:
> 
> I also noticed this...being a single rather lower-income mom of 5 
kids!  It 
> really annoyed me that the family would take trips to Egypt, 
etc...yet Ron 
> gets crap for magical supplies and (HORRORS) hand me down Dress-
Robes!  Mrs. 
> Weasly says something like 'We just can't afford new ones!"  
Yet...can't they 
> magically fix them to look decent??   Its like the family really 
cares only 
> about the older boys who they are so  proud of, but poor Ron is 
left with 
> used junk!  I was SO happy at the end of the 4th book when Harry 
asked the 
> twins to please get Ron some new Dress-Robes!  But sad that his own 
mother 
> couldn't see the need.  (And frankly, as a Pagan who frequents many 
rituals 
> with children, its not hard to make nice robes for real cheap!)
> 
> << Also, another thing I've wondered about: Ron uses a
> "hand-me-down wand in the first 2 books. How does this
> influence his studies?
> 
> As we have seen when Harry gets his wand, things can go
> quite wrong, if the wand isn't right for the wizard. >>
> 
> 
> 
> shahara lefay
> pagan priestess 
> **serendipitously smitten with severus snape**




From NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com  Sat Feb  2 18:58:13 2002
From: NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com (NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 13:58:13 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: About Ron (not shipping)
Message-ID: <a4.2076e758.298d90c5@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34529

  

<< As for the clothes, you may prefer spiffy new clothes to trips to 
Egypt, but frankly, I don't. Having 8 children in the house means 
that I've always worn hand-me-downs, and second-hand clothes >>

No, we don't prefer 'spiffy new' anything...I don't even own a car!  We only 
shop at thrift shops (or I make clothes) except when the kids get money they 
earn or for their birthdays, but we CAN and do get spiffy used clothes.  
Trips are nice, but they don't have to be so long that the kids have to wear 
rags or clothes that are simply too small or inappropriate!   Also, by the 
forth book, three of the boys are adults with jobs of their own...certainly 
the Weasleys might have a bit more money for 'better' used items with only 4 
children in the house.  Which makes me wonder about Ginny...did she get new 
things or hand me down magical supplies too? 

<<I doubt very much that the parents pay 
way more attention to their older boys. I doubt it especially when I 
notice that the other Weasley child who seems to feel that they're 
not being paid attention to is Percy. Over and over again, he is 
always trying to get his family's attention, and feels that he is 
unappreciated. We know this is wrong for Percy, why do we accept 
Ron's version of things so quickly>>

I read the books differently.  The older boys have done terrific things, the 
twins are often getting into mischief, but Ron is just lukewarm...isn't  
great, isn't bad...his folks see that Harry has everything nice and new, they 
can't see Rons embarrassment.  I realize all families are different, but I'd 
never send my boy-child away with lacy too-short dressrobes!  Who wouldn't be 
insecure?  I just don't see the Weaslys doing much for Ron...except inviting 
Harry to their house.
~shahara



shahara lefay
pagan priestess 
**serendipitously smitten with severus snape**



From uncmark at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  2 19:28:26 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 19:28:26 -0000
Subject: Harry: thinking outsude the box (WAS ageline)
In-Reply-To: <a3gulo+f5i2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3hekq+q7qu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34530

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> uncmark wrote:
> 
> > > I'm surprised the Hogwart's crew wasn't more creative in Goblet 
> of Fire. Did anyone try anything but age potions?
> > 
> Tabouli added:
> 
> > Yeah, I noticed that myself.  A poor effort.  You'd think at 
> > least the Slytherins could have come up with something a bit 
> > craftier.  Mind you, it's Dumbledore's imagination they're 
> > pitting themselves against here... something tells me the big D 
> > is a creative chap...

Cindy wrote  
> Oh, I don't know.  Frankly, I think the younger students were just 
> blowing smoke and didn't really want to compete in the Tournament.  
> That would have required immense talent beyond one's years, at the 
> risk of being burned alive by a dragon or skrewt, drowned, etc.  It 
> makes some sense that only Fred and George would have tried it, as 
> they are Brave Gryffindors.  
> 
> It is hard to believe that a student could come up with something 
> clever enough to get past anything protection Dumbledore set up.  
> No, it takes a serious psychopath like Fake Moody to handle that.

Personally, I think we're in a Catch-22. Any student advanced in 
magic enogh to challenge the Goblet was probably over 17 or if not, 
they would have to have the ability, desire, and creativity and guile 
to challenge the Goblet.

My p[oint about thinking in the box is that most magic students would 
be so used to magic solutions that they overlooked simple muggle 
approaches. Fred and George might have considered getting an older 
student to put their names in, but had a shortage of accomplices 
(could you picture Percy doing this?)

A muggle born wizard like Hermione could probably sneak through, but 
she lacks the desire and guile (she doesn't want to stick out as a 
rulrbreaker)

Malfoy has the guile and probably the ability (he'd bribe or 
blackmail an older student) but lacks the bravery to face any sort of 
challenge. Remember him running away in the Forbidden Forest?

One thing I love about Harry is his creative thinking. I loved him 
flying in the dragon task. Sirius hinted at 'a simple spell' before 
being cut off, but hadn't considered flying. Krum tried the eye 
attack Sirius was thinking off and fell short on points by damaging 
the dragon's eggs. 

And only Harry would have shared the hint of dragons, driven by a 
sense of fairness (absent in the foreign champions in the tournament. 
Cedric, possibly inspired by Harry, would not have shared the secret 
about the eggs, if Harry had not made the first move. And Harry would 
not have been helped by Dobby on the second task if he hadn't freed 
Dobby at the end of CofS. Who else but Harry would have done that?

uncmark

 

Only Harry 





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Sat Feb  2 17:46:23 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 17:46:23 -0000
Subject: Tough Peter (Was Real Wizards Aren't Squeamish )
In-Reply-To: <a3gtln+pl9h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3h8lf+4c8m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34531

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" <theennead at a...> wrote:
> But on this topic, I've always wondered why Peter didn't take that 
> approach with Sirius in the first place.  He already knows that 
> Voldemort has mysteriously vanished, and he may even already know
> that the other DEs are starting to mutter things about him having
> betrayed their master to his doom.  So wouldn't you think that it 
> would make more sense, from a strategic standpoint, to try to get 
> back in with the winning side while the getting's good, rather than
> going into hiding for thirteen years?

Well, he may have known about the "mysteriously vanished" part, but 
did he know any more than that?  Did he know that Volemort was down 
for the count?  At the time, everyone pretty much thought that V was 
invincible, so Peter probably thought that the disappearance was 
just a temporary setback, and that V would be back any moment, 
kicking more butt.  In which case worming his was back into the good 
guys' graces would've been a really bad move.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com






From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Sat Feb  2 20:14:32 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 20:14:32 -0000
Subject: Lupin's lesson plans and transformations + JKR's humour
In-Reply-To: <X4Hv2jIv7$W8EwpA@muridae.co.uk>
Message-ID: <a3hhb8+5mps@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34532

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Muridae <muridae at m...> wrote:

Pippin wrote:
>He doesn't leave a lesson plan for his sub though he knows he'll be
>absent.

The way I see it, Lupin's too responsible (when not thinking under 
stress conditions as in the pre-shack scene) to forget something as 
important as that. He probably DID have a lesson plan (not just for 
full-moon, but for the entire year). Why didn't Snape use it? The 
answer is pretty simple (sorry to Snape-filies, but it IS on 
character): Snape WILL NOT use the lesson plans of anyone else but 
himself, much less a werewolf's plan, and even less the plan of a 
childhood enemy. Since Lupin probably didn't leave explicit 
instructions in case he got really sick (you could still ask him during 
day time, even in full moon, see below), Snape was free to supose that 
there were NO plans and so, he could carry out the pitiful vengeance on 
Lupin by trying to get his students to realise he's a werewolf.

Muridae said:
<snip introduction>
> His absence comes as a complete surprise to the kids, which 
> implies that it's likely something that's not happened before. And it 
> takes place in *November*, which means that Lupin's managed to
> struggle through two full moons already.
<snip further proof>

> It could well be that the side effects of taking the potion are variable in their intensity, and that while it laid him out for several days on those two occasions, most months he just felt a little queasy or groggy but was able to carry on with his normal routine enough to keep up public appearances.

As much as I prefer my own theory for Lupin's lesson plan (see above), 
I must admit I'm going to shamelessly steal this theory for my own, 
since it fits perfectly the old discussion of whether Lupin 
un-transforms during the day or stays in the wolf-form during the 
entire full moon. The evidence Muridae has found in the canon means 
that he's able to give lessons during most of the full moons, which 
implies he's human during day-time. The problem still unresolved, 
however, it's the full extent of the potion he takes. I suposse that it 
"tames" the werewolf during the nights, in exchange with a general 
sickness, and in some cases extreme sickeness which leads to being 
unable to teach. However, other views are welcomed (as always).

Amy Z asked:
And I'd love to know where you'd categorize the sorts of verbal humor 
in which JKR is very adept; they usually get classified as some kind of 
irony, e.g. "Just then, Neville caused a slight diversion by turning 
into a large canary" (that's physical humor, but it's the "slight 
diversion" phrasing that makes me LOL) and "Professor Trelawney kept 
predicting Harry's death, which he found extremely annoying."

It's called "understatement" and is one of my favourites forms of 
humour when it's well done (which is one of the reasons I like D. 
Eddings: "Alorns took a childly's delight in understatement", as in 
	"If Torak learns to use the Orb of Aldur,
	he'll conquer the world", said Belgarath.
	"And we wouldn't like that", said Riva
			Somewhere in Belgarath the Sorcerer, I hope)

I believe it's a form of irony (although I'm not, by any rate, 
knowledged in humour) based on deliberately stealing the importance of 
a situation with a phrase. In stressful circunstances it's very 
welcomed, since it makes you laugh at the situation itself, thus 
managing to calm your nerves (believe me, I know, I'm in exams, and one 
of my friends is a master at understatement).

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf
(He who hopes his opinions have not been said by other members in posts 
he's not had the time to read lately, thus embarrasing him when he's 
faced with the acusation "X said that two days ago!")





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Sat Feb  2 22:00:18 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 22:00:18 -0000
Subject: OT: Spanish inquisition
In-Reply-To: <a3c0aa+m0jv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3hnhi+rdak@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34533

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sing2wine" <bonnie.abrams at c...> wrote: 
> Maybe I'm just too Jewish but perhaps wizards and witches are kind of 
> like Conversos - Jews forced to convert to Christianity in 
> Inquisition Spain (they share being burned alive for not doing so...).
> They clandestinely kept their "old" practices while outwardly 
> appearing to be observant Christians...It fits the wizarding world in 
> more ways than one...
> 
> Bonnie / sing2wine
-------------

This is absolutely off-topic, but I, being Spanish, feel that I must 
explain (at least partially) the events surrounding the Jewish 
expulsion.

(We're speaking of 1492 here, around Columbus's visit to America) 
Against what most people tend to believe, Spanish inquisition DID NOT 
burn jews that resisted convertion: they were thrown out of Spain on 
"religious" reasons, as had been expulsed the arabs some months before, 
but it was the work of royalty, since the Catholic Kings (Isabel and 
Fernando) were aiming to unite Spain, and the best way to manage it was 
to unite all Christian against common enemy (it's a tired old plot, but 
it always seems to work). Since they had just finished eigth centuries 
of Spanish reconquer, the religious essay was the most handy, and they 
needed the money Jews always seem to have.

Anyway, all non-christian were forced to convert or leave. While arabs 
went South to Africa, most of the jews migrated to the North of Europe, 
or to Portugal. The Spanish inquisition didn't gain real strength until 
a few years later, with Carlos I (V of Germany) and Felipe II (sorry if 
the monarchs' names are in Spanish, I don't know what English 
historians call them), and in that time they DID kill people in the 
fire, but for more reasons than being a false convert (like speaking 
back to the inqusition, or for not doing so... just figure). We are now 
in the XVI century, and the sad history of Spanish inquisition is 
really starting.

On a side note, the Inqusition was NOT a Spanish invention: it 
originated in Italy, and every country in Western Europe had some, 
although it's in Spain were it had the most power.

Anyway, thanks for listening to my rants, and let me ask for 
forgiveness for introducing this OT theme. I know all I've said here 
could be biased education, but some research on my part of foreign 
authors seem to give a solid base to it. However, I'm no historian, and 
may had got a few facts wrong (but the basis, I hope, is correct).

Hope that helps

Grey Wolf
(He who hopes he'll not get flamed by introducing OT, or by some 
historian student with difering views on the subject)





From siskiou at earthlink.net  Sat Feb  2 20:11:15 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 12:11:15 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: About Ron (not shipping)
In-Reply-To: <a3hbgc+2kh0@eGroups.com>
References: <a3hbgc+2kh0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <134269124566.20020202121115@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34534



Hi,

Saturday, February 02, 2002, 10:34:52 AM, lucky_kari wrote:

> As for Ron, not having any attention paid to him, I always thought 
> that was just his insecurity.

But it has to come from somewhere.

>  I doubt very much that the parents pay 
> way more attention to their older boys.

Maybe not more attention, but it sounds as if there
successes a talked about often.
It seems all the other boys have their *specialties*, and
Ginny is the only girl, which sets her apart.

Ron's *specialty* is his friends, particularly Harry, but it
isn't anything he has done himself.
At least that's what Ron seems to think, even though *I*
think he's done plenty <g>.

Ron doesn't seem to consider his chess ability important.

And looking at living with lots of siblings:
while Harry may think it would be wonderful to be surrounded
by all this love, it isn't always that way in reality.
There is lots of teasing (not always the nice and loving
kind, either) and competition.
I could see lots of *being made fun of* going on, especially
with Fred and George as older brothers.

I'll have to re-read the books, looking for more detail
about the Weasley's family life.

So, while Ron's childhood was certainly much better than Harry's,
it could have had it's own problems, too.
Insecurities don't usually come out of nowhere.

And concerning the wand issue, while it didn't cause any
disasters until it broke, I could still see it not being
helpful, either.

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





From wilke013 at gold.tc.umn.edu  Sat Feb  2 21:29:59 2002
From: wilke013 at gold.tc.umn.edu (jrwilkens)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 21:29:59 -0000
Subject: A Certain Room
Message-ID: <a3hlon+6psv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34535

Hello, I'm a newbie who's been lurking amoung these messages for the past month or so.  I'm quite 
impressed with the enthusiasm, respect, and maturity of the discussions as well as the incredible volume 
of messages that pass through.  I'm anxious to join in!  I'd thought I'd start with posing a question I ran 
across in perusing the interviews on the Lexicon site.  I haven't seen anyone address what room JKR is 
referring to in this quote.  Any ideas??

If you could travel to Hogwarts for an hour, what would you do there? 

  Go straight into a certain room, mentioned in book four which has certain magical properties Harry
  hasn't discovered yet! 

http://www.comicrelief.com/harrysbooks/pages/transcript2.shtml

Thanks!

JRW






From wilke013 at gold.tc.umn.edu  Sat Feb  2 21:40:03 2002
From: wilke013 at gold.tc.umn.edu (jrwilkens)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 21:40:03 -0000
Subject: O.W.L.s and N.E.W.T.s
Message-ID: <a3hmbj+2amd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34536

As an American (well out of high school!) I was curious if anyone familiar with education in Britain could 
tell me if there are anything similar to these delightfully named tests taken by Hogwarts students in the 
British system?  In other words, standarized tests taken around age 15 as well as in the last school 
year?  

Also what are the twelve possible O.W.L.s one can achieve?  (I'm assuming twelve is maximum based on 
quotes relating to Percy and Barty Crouch, etal.)  Are passing these tests necessary to graduation and if 
so, does passing at least one O.W.L. count?

JRW (who is terribly obsessive-compulsive about tests and likes to know exactly where she stands on 
them!)






From wilke013 at gold.tc.umn.edu  Sat Feb  2 21:57:32 2002
From: wilke013 at gold.tc.umn.edu (jrwilkens)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 21:57:32 -0000
Subject: James as Stag
Message-ID: <a3hncc+q8kl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34537

Andrew MacIan <andrew_macian at y...> wrote:
> So, for James to appear as a stag is in line with
> being a *very* strong protector symbol, both for Lupin
> and his other friends, as well as for his son.

I agree that as a symbol James As Stag works quite well and especially works as Harry's Patronus.  My 
problem with James As Stag is a practical one.  We have a fairly graphic description of how small a tunnel 
exists between the Whomping Willow and the Shrieking Shack.  I can imagine a large dog and a werewolf 
getting in and out.  But can you really picture a large stag with full set of prongs managing in the narrow 
confines!!

JRW






From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  2 22:15:15 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 22:15:15 -0000
Subject: Wands [was: About Ron (not shipping)]
In-Reply-To: <40.1885e702.298c9744@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a3hodj+pvio@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34538

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., NOTaMuggleFamily at a... wrote:
> << Also, another thing I've wondered about: Ron uses a
> "hand-me-down wand in the first 2 books. How does this
> influence his studies?
> 
> As we have seen when Harry gets his wand, things can go
> quite wrong, if the wand isn't right for the wizard. >>

You are confused.  Yes, in the film Harry wreaks havoc on the wand 
shop until he finds the right one, but in the book, nothing at all 
happens until he gets the right wand.  Ollivander repeatedly pulls 
wands out of Harry's hand when he sees that nothing at all is 
occurring, until Harry finally feels a warmth in his hand and sparks 
spill from the end of his true wand.  

While Ron's magical ability should--in theory--improve with a wand 
that has chosen him, we aren't told that he's suddenly the star of 
his year in PoA because of the new wand.  He simply stops doing 
things like having curses backfire on him, causing him to spit up 
slugs (the result of the broken wand).  His hand-me-down wand in the 
first book doesn't seem to impede his magical education; it's just 
the wand being broken in the second book which poses a problem.  
(And one has to wonder how he didn't fail every exam with this 
thing.)

--Barb
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb





From catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk  Sat Feb  2 22:21:02 2002
From: catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk (catorman)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 22:21:02 -0000
Subject: Wands [was: About Ron (not shipping)]
In-Reply-To: <a3hodj+pvio@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3hooe+6r4d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34539

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:
His hand-me-down wand in the 
> first book doesn't seem to impede his magical education; it's just 
> the wand being broken in the second book which poses a problem.  
> (And one has to wonder how he didn't fail every exam with this 
> thing.)


Just a quickie - he didn't have to pass any exams in his second year, 
as they were all cancelled due to the fact the whole school was 
celebrating over the defeat of the Heir of Slytherin/Rescue of 
Ginny/reviving of the petrified students, cat and ghost.

Catherine




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  2 22:30:45 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 22:30:45 -0000
Subject: Weasley holiday trips/Magically altering clothes [was: About Ron (not shipping)]
In-Reply-To: <a3hbgc+2kh0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3hpal+f0u1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34540

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> As for the clothes, you may prefer spiffy new clothes to trips to 
> Egypt, but frankly, I don't. Having 8 children in the house means 
> that I've always worn hand-me-downs, and second-hand clothes. Like 
> Ron, it bothered me sometimes, but I completely approved of our 
> family's preference for taking long summer vacations to Alaska, 
> California, the Grand Canyon, Ontario etc. It's either new clothes 
> or good vacations in our house, and I vote heartily (with the 
> Weasleys) for vacations! 

Except that the Weasleys didn't pay for the trip to Egypt out of 
pocket; they won a contest.  Otherwise, we don't hear of any holiday 
trips taken, not even to visit relatives.  So the Weasleys are too 
poor both for new clothes for everyone AND holiday trips.  (And 
since you said you're the oldest of 8, I'm unclear about why the 
OLDEST child wore hand-me-downs; as the YOUNGEST of 5; it should be 
obvious why I wore hand-me-downs.)

> Magically altering robes does not, for some strange reason, work 
> in the Harry Potter world, in the same way that cosmetic surgery 
> doesn't seem to exist anywhere. I don't think JKR thought out that 
> one.

I do think you're right about the altering not working, but it's 
also consistent with many other things in the Potterverse.  
Polyjuice Potion lasts for only an hour.  Moody needs a prosthetic 
leg and eye (magic won't just miraculously replace the former body 
parts).  Magic isn't a cure-all for shabby clothes; you would 
probably need to continually reinforce the spell.  

OTOH, something JKR includes that actually contradicts this 
previously well-laid concept is what Barty Crouch, Jr. does to hide 
his father's body: he transfigures it into a large bone and buries 
it in Hagrid's garden.  Will the bone change back into the corpse at 
some point?  Will it be a bone forever, unless someone breaks the 
spell?  With this in mind, now one has to wonder why one can't put a 
fairly long-lasting transfiguration spell on any garment to give it 
any appearance one might wish.  THIS actually seems to be the bit 
that JKR didn't think out too well, rather than the earlier part.

--Barb
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb 




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  2 22:33:44 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 22:33:44 -0000
Subject: Wands [was: About Ron (not shipping)]
In-Reply-To: <a3hooe+6r4d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3hpg8+pvu6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34541

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catorman" <catherine at c...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:
> His hand-me-down wand in the 
> > first book doesn't seem to impede his magical education; it's 
> > just the wand being broken in the second book which poses a 
> > problem.  (And one has to wonder how he didn't fail every exam 
> > with this thing.)
> 
> Just a quickie - he didn't have to pass any exams in his second 
> year, as they were all cancelled due to the fact the whole school 
> was celebrating over the defeat of the Heir of Slytherin/Rescue of 
> Ginny/reviving of the petrified students, cat and ghost.
 
I believe they have exams set for them at the end of each term: 
autumn, spring and summer.  It was only the exams at the end of the 
summer term that were cancelled.

--Barb





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Sat Feb  2 22:44:13 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 22:44:13 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts Exams and education
In-Reply-To: <a3hpg8+pvu6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3hq3t+10g4g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34542

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

> I believe they have exams set for them at the end of each term: 
> autumn, spring and summer.  It was only the exams at the end of the 
> summer term that were cancelled.
> 
> --Barb

Do you have any Canon to back that up? I don't recall any exam (not 
even "surprise exams" as the ones I get to keep us students on our toes 
the whole year) apart from the ones just before the summer.

Anyway, has it been discussed the sort of education Harry's year in 
general and Harry himself are receiving? I mean, exams get cancelled 
pretty often (Harry's only done two series of exams in four years), and 
people like Crabbe, Goyle and Longbottom seem to pass without too many 
dificulties. Also, the only known cases of poeple flunking and 
repeating a year are Flint (and it was a flint, thus the name of JKR's 
errors, I think), and some other Quiditch captain (again a possible 
flint). Is it me, or is the education REALLY low-case?

Hope s.o. can help,

Grey Wolf





From hollydaze at btinternet.com  Sat Feb  2 23:17:38 2002
From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 23:17:38 -0000
Subject: Weasley holiday trips
References: <a3hpal+f0u1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <09d001c1ac3f$cea63240$f7fc7ad5@j0dhe>

No: HPFGUIDX 34543

lucky_kari wrote:
> > and I vote heartily (with the 
> > Weasleys) for vacations! 

Barb wrote:
> Except that the Weasleys didn't pay for the trip to Egypt out of 
> pocket; they won a contest.  Otherwise, we don't hear of any holiday 
> trips taken, not even to visit relatives

Yes we do... in book 1 Mr and Mrs Wealsey go to visit Charlie in Romania, that is why Ron doesn't go home for Christmas! And the Weasley's did pay for the trip to Egypt. The competition prize was money, not the holiday. They used that money to pay for the holiday, therefore, strictly speaking, they did pay for it.

HOLLYDAZE!!! 


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




From NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com  Sat Feb  2 23:23:04 2002
From: NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com (NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 18:23:04 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Weasley holiday trips/Magically altering clothes [was: About Ron (not shipping)]
Message-ID: <170.82638f0.298dced8@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34544


True in a sense...they won a contest that paid 700 Galleons...they took the 
trip with the money, of which 'most of the money went to the trip but...some 
will go to a new wand (for Ron) next year' or something like that.
~shahara

<< Except that the Weasleys didn't pay for the trip to Egypt out of 
pocket; they won a contest. >>



shahara lefay
pagan priestess 
**serendipitously smitten with severus snape**



From marybear82 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  2 23:27:30 2002
From: marybear82 at yahoo.com (Mary Shearer)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 15:27:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] A Certain Room
In-Reply-To: <a3hlon+6psv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020202232730.27238.qmail@web14008.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34545


--- jrwilkens <wilke013 at gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
 I'd thought I'd start with posing a question I
> ran 
> across in perusing the interviews on the Lexicon
> site.  I haven't seen anyone address what room JKR
> is 
> referring to in this quote.  Any ideas??
> 
> If you could travel to Hogwarts for an hour, what
> would you do there? 
> 
>   Go straight into a certain room, mentioned in book
> four which has certain magical properties Harry
>   hasn't discovered yet! 

Welcome, JRW - fun question! If it were me, I'd pick
the prefects' bathroom...but I doubt that a fourteen
year old boy is gonna appreciate it's "magic" the way
a stressed-out 37-year-old woman can!  There could be
more than meets the eye there, though.

My other guess would be the antechamber off the great
hall.  We see the room twice, but briefly in GoF. 
First, when the champions gather there for
instructions immediately following the goblet's
decision, and later when the families come to greet
them before the third task.  Bill Weasley looks around
the room fondly - as though it is special to him - and
says, "It's great being back here!"  Then Violet, the
fat lady's friend winks at him from her portrait on
the wall.  Why would he choose that room in which to
wax nostalgic? Seems to me he'd say that out in the
impressive great hall, or in the Gryffindor common
room, or any number of other places in which memories
are made - but a little-used room off the dining hall?
 I dunno - just a guess, but maybe that room is
significant somehow. 

-Mary, who thinks the antechamber off the great hall
better be pretty special to top the prefects'
bathroom!  
>
http://www.comicrelief.com/harrysbooks/pages/transcript2.shtml
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> JRW
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com



From siskiou at earthlink.net  Sat Feb  2 22:25:09 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 14:25:09 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wands [was: About Ron (not shipping)]
In-Reply-To: <a3hodj+pvio@eGroups.com>
References: <a3hodj+pvio@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <11277159521.20020202142509@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34546



Hi,

Saturday, February 02, 2002, 2:15:15 PM, blpurdom wrote:


> You are confused.  Yes, in the film Harry wreaks havoc on the wand 
> shop until he finds the right one, but in the book, nothing at all 
> happens until he gets the right wand.

Yes, I realized they exaggerated the "wand choice" in the
movie very soon after my post :}

> While Ron's magical ability should--in theory--improve with a wand
> that has chosen him, we aren't told that he's suddenly the star of 
> his year in PoA because of the new wand.

I wouldn't expect him to suddenly turn into a SuperWizard,
but could see the lessons involving a wand become just a bit
easier.

Does anyone know if the new wand is basically the same as
the old one?
Do we know anything about Hermione's wand?

Off to read more of the HPforGrownups FAQ. Very interesting!

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





From cindysphynx at home.com  Sun Feb  3 00:18:24 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 00:18:24 -0000
Subject: Magically altering clothes 
In-Reply-To: <a3hpal+f0u1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3hvkg+dtj3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34547

Barb wrote:

>With this in mind, now one has to wonder why one can't put a 
> fairly long-lasting transfiguration spell on any garment to give it 
> any appearance one might wish.  THIS actually seems to be the bit 
> that JKR didn't think out too well, rather than the earlier part.
> 

I think it makes sense that wizards aren't able to mend their clothes 
with a long-lasting transfiguration spell.  It seems that mending a 
garment would require a specific spell.  A wizard might or might not 
be accomplished with the required spell, much the way certain muggles 
don't know how to sew.  After all, Ron alters his dress robes in GoF; 
he just does it very badly.

I'd also imagine that cooking works the same way; Molly knows how to 
make sauce out of her wand, but Snape might not.

Cindy (who definitely wouldn't trust Snape's cooking)




From catlover at netwrx1.com  Sun Feb  3 00:15:20 2002
From: catlover at netwrx1.com (Kim Heikkinen)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 18:15:20 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] A Certain Room
In-Reply-To: <20020202232730.27238.qmail@web14008.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <a3hlon+6psv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4.3.0.20020202181349.00aa8f00@pop.netwrx1.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34548

Wilkens posed the question, which JKR actually asked:

> > If you could travel to Hogwarts for an hour, what
> > would you do there?
> >
> >   Go straight into a certain room, mentioned in book
> > four which has certain magical properties Harry
> >   hasn't discovered yet!

I'm guessing it's the prefects' bathroom, too. I know I'd love to see that, 
and take a bath there...so sybaritic-sounding!

Kim

*******************************************************************
Kim Heikkinen catlover at netwrx1.com
"I may not be an explorer, or an adventurer, or a treasure seeker, or a 
gunfighter...but I am proud of what I am...I AM A LIBRARIAN!!!"--The Mummy
Don't blame me, I voted for Gore!  http://www.fight4choice.com
It's hard to be angry when a cat is sitting in your lap...
******************************************************************* 

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





From NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com  Sun Feb  3 01:10:23 2002
From: NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com (NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 20:10:23 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] A Certain Room
Message-ID: <47.178fdc98.298de7ff@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34549


Certainly visit Prof. Snape in his Dungeon/Office!!!  And there I'd stay!  =)
~shahara

<<  If you could travel to Hogwarts for an hour, what
> > would you do there >>



shahara lefay
pagan priestess 
**serendipitously smitten with severus snape**



From uncmark at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  3 03:28:31 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 03:28:31 -0000
Subject: A Certain Room
In-Reply-To: <a3hlon+6psv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3iaov+mosa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34550

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrwilkens" <wilke013 at g...> wrote:
 
> If you could travel to Hogwarts for an hour, what would you do 
there? 
> 
>   Go straight into a certain room, mentioned in book four which has 
certain magical properties Harry hasn't discovered yet! 
> 
I don't know about the anteroom, but I'd like to chat with Dumbledore 
in his office. I'd say hi to Fawkes and wander through the penseive a 
bit

uncmark





From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  3 03:53:50 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 03:53:50 -0000
Subject: Weasley holiday trips
In-Reply-To: <09d001c1ac3f$cea63240$f7fc7ad5@j0dhe>
Message-ID: <a3ic8e+pvg6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34551

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Hollydaze" <hollydaze at b...> wrote:
> lucky_kari wrote:
> > > and I vote heartily (with the 
> > > Weasleys) for vacations! 
> 
> Barb wrote:
> > Except that the Weasleys didn't pay for the trip to Egypt out of 
> > pocket; they won a contest.  Otherwise, we don't hear of any 
> > holiday trips taken, not even to visit relatives
> 
> Yes we do... in book 1 Mr and Mrs Wealsey go to visit Charlie in 
> Romania, that is why Ron doesn't go home for Christmas! 

Right.  Only Mr. and Mrs. Weasley went; they didn't take the whole 
family.  THAT would have constituted a family holiday trip!

> And the Weasley's did pay for the trip to Egypt. The competition 
> prize was money, not the holiday. They used that money to pay for 
> the holiday, therefore, strictly speaking, they did pay for it.

That's why I said they didn't pay for it "out of pocket;" they had 
to win a contest, or they normally wouldn't have had this money.  It 
was an unusual event, and one which hasn't been repeated.  Also, 
they had to borrow tents for the Quidditch World Cup, and Ludo 
Bagman got them the choice tickets.  None of that came out of the 
Weasley pockets.  Otherwise, chances are they wouldn't have gone.

--Barb





From zoehooch at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  3 03:34:53 2002
From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 03:34:53 -0000
Subject: Harry and Draco and Lucius
Message-ID: <a3ib4t+9qlq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34552

I've been thinking since book 2 that there has to more to Draco 
Malfoy than to torment Harry and his friends. He's too important a 
character to just keep up the same snobbery and childish teasing that 
he's so well known for.

I have begun to think that in one of three remaining books, there is 
going to be a confrontation between Lucius and Harry that will test 
Draco and cause him to question his unquestioning loyalty to his 
father and that Draco will come to Harry's rescue in some way. Or 
that Harry will somehow come to Draco's rescue, and when Draco is 
forced to choose between the dark side his father represents and the 
golden side that Harry and Dumbledore et. al. represent, Draco may 
well move to the golden side and reject Voldemort and Death Eaters. 

Does this make sense to anyone? It would seem that there's a lot of 
writing/plot-line opportunity, if nothing else.

Zoe Hooch, who can hardly wait for OoP.





From boggles at earthlink.net  Sun Feb  3 05:08:29 2002
From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 23:08:29 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Lupin Passive Aggressive? was Re: Sirius'
 Prank etc
In-Reply-To: <a3clu1+n9fb@eGroups.com>
References: <a3clu1+n9fb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <f0501040fb88272c4b499@[66.32.51.53]>

No: HPFGUIDX 34553

At 12:02 AM +0000 2/1/02, moongirlk wrote:
>--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
>
>>  He doesn't leave a lesson plan for his sub though he knows he'll be
>>  absent. 
>
>Drat again, can't justify this one except as a plot device to get
>werewolves on the agenda.

Looking over PoA9, Snape never says that Lupin didn't leave him a 
lesson plan for the day.  What he says is that Lupin hasn't left any 
record of what topics they have covered so far this year - that is, 
that he hasn't left a lesson-plan _book_.  Personally, I leave 
single-page plans for subs, not a planning book.  (Mine is more of a 
folder than a book, anyway.)  And, I know from personal experience 
from both the teacher and the student ends that the sub does not 
always follow the plan that was left.  My impression from Snape's 
constant "_I_ am teaching this class" comments was that Snape had 
made up his mind to teach the werewolf lesson no matter what Lupin 
had or hadn't left him.

My impression of Lupin's teaching style, and his "did you tell him we 
hadn't covered them" queries to the students whe he returns, lead me 
to guess that he left some notes- "pages 112-115, basic hinkypunk 
behavior and defense, answer questions 11-19 at the end of the 
chapter for homework," that sort of thing - for the sub, although 
probably not a full lesson plan.  I doubt he knew it was going to be 
Snape, and I suspect Snape chose to ignore said notes.

And, is it just me, or is there a certain ammount of self-loathing in 
Snape's "I never thought I'd meet a third-year class who wouldn't 
even recognize a werewolf if they saw one" jab?  If _he_'d recognized 
one when he saw one, he'd've never gone into the Whomping Willow, now 
would he?

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



From andrew_macian at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  3 05:09:23 2002
From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 21:09:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] James as Stag
In-Reply-To: <a3hncc+q8kl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020203050923.22223.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34554

Greetings from Andrew!

...but it's *magic*!....
--- jrwilkens <wilke013 at gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
> Andrew MacIan <andrew_macian at y...> wrote:
> > So, for James to appear as a stag is in line with
> > being a *very* strong protector symbol, both for
> Lupin
> > and his other friends, as well as for his son.
> 
> I agree that as a symbol James As Stag works quite
> well and especially works as Harry's Patronus.  My 
> problem with James As Stag is a practical one.  We
> have a fairly graphic description of how small a
> tunnel 
> exists between the Whomping Willow and the Shrieking
> Shack.  I can imagine a large dog and a werewolf 
> getting in and out.  But can you really picture a
> large stag with full set of prongs managing in the
> narrow 
> confines!!

First, welcome aboard!  And a glass of wine with you!

Second, never let a small problem with engineering
and/or logistics get in the way of a decent plot
device!

{grin}

Seriously, I concur but I never really gave it a
thought.  Scaling in alternate forms is pretty much a
given; we note that other Animagi have to adjust mass
when shifting, and we are not told by Rowling that
they cannot equally adjust size/volume at will.

Note that I would say this is a plot hole of middle
magnitude, but since we don't 'know' any better, I'm
also tempted to shrug and say 'Eh, well....'  I have
from my own research that various were-shapes come out
in various sizes, and the size of a given were can be
dependent on the culture of origin.  Good examples are
the fox-spirits in Japanese sword-maker myths, and the
variable size of the were-wolf in tales from Central
and Eastern Europe.

So, yes, for lack of given direction, I have
*definite* problems with a 14- to 16-point buck (at
about 14 hh) wandering down that tunnel without a
*lot* of cursing and swearing on his part.

Cheers,

Drieux

=====
ICQ # 76184391

'Each game of chess means there's one less
      Variation left to be played;
 Each day got through means one or two less
      Mistakes remain to be made.'
      --'Chess' by Sir Tim Rice

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com



From neilward at dircon.co.uk  Sun Feb  3 05:14:53 2002
From: neilward at dircon.co.uk (Neil Ward)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 05:14:53 -0000
Subject: ADMIN: Reminder about OT/short posts etc.
Message-ID: <00b801c1ac71$b6c796a0$0e3770c2@c5s910j>

No: HPFGUIDX 34555

~~Crawling along the west wing corridors, Flying Ford Anglia trapped several
listmembers in a tingling headlight beam and they found they had no choice
but to walk, transfixed, to the Noticeboard and read the boring old ADMIN
parchment posted there...~~

OT DISCUSSIONS

Can I remind everyone that we have a fascinating and lively OT Chatter list
for off-topic discussions and some borderline HP topics?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/.  Discussion on the main
board should be limited to discussion of the Harry Potter books.

- If you feel that you ought to label your post "OT," that's a signal that
it shouldn't be here.

- If an HP thread veers off-topic, please move it to OT Chatter (i.e. if
your post is near-OT, add a postscript to invite a continuation on OT
Chatter) or, if appropriate, to a private discussion (i.e. if the discussion
gets personal or chatty between you and one or two others).

SHORT POSTS

Because of the high message volume here, we also discourage the posting of
one-line or very short posts, especially if they are throwaway remarks or
completely OT  ("I completely agree!  My mother has one of those knitted
hats - LOL!") Again, you have the option of posting comments on OT Chatter
or off-list, but, if you have some other HP-related things to say, you could
also bury remarks in a multiple topic post.

Any doubts about the list rules (there are some others), check out this
link:  http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/netiquette/

... or drop us a line at hpforgrownwups-owner at yahoogroups.com

~~The listmembers were amazed at the effects of the ADMIN message:  "I never
knew I could get such a buzz out of reading a bunch of list rules!" said
one.  "No," said another, "... and I hear that they have something new up
their sleeves that will blow all previous administrative files out of the
water...".  "Really?" said a third, "I feel perfectly dizzy with
anticipation."~~

Neil
____________________
Flying Ford Anglia
Mechanimagus Moderator






From devin.smither at yale.edu  Sun Feb  3 05:04:34 2002
From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 05:04:34 -0000
Subject: Harry and Draco and Lucius
In-Reply-To: <a3ib4t+9qlq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3igd2+31fp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34556

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "zoehooch" <zoehooch at y...> wrote:
> I have begun to think that in one of three remaining books, there 
is 
> going to be a confrontation between Lucius and Harry that will test 
> Draco and cause him to question his unquestioning loyalty to his 
> father and that Draco will come to Harry's rescue in some way. Or 
> that Harry will somehow come to Draco's rescue, and when Draco is 
> forced to choose between the dark side his father represents and 
the 
> golden side that Harry and Dumbledore et. al. represent, Draco may 
> well move to the golden side and reject Voldemort and Death Eaters. 
> 
> Does this make sense to anyone? It would seem that there's a lot of 
> writing/plot-line opportunity, if nothing else.
> 

Oh absolutely.  Draco's going to step up at some point and reject 
everything his father stands for (though he will probably retain some 
of his snobbery, etc.).  The obvious canon evidence to point to for 
support is when, in PS/SS, Dumbledore compares James and Snape to 
Harry and Draco (in terms of both members of each pair detesting the 
other member).  And we all know that Snape eventually saw the light 
even if he never got over his childhood feud with James.  What made 
him do that?  And what will make Draco do the same?  So, yes, I'm 
certain that Draco will somehow save Harry or vice-versa or at least 
Draco will come to the realization that good does not equal weak and 
evil does not equal strong (his current set of values, as the Draco 
defenders will tell you, is the immature weak vs. strong rather than 
good vs. evil).  Big question: What is the fate of Lucius Malfoy IF 
Draco leaves the Dark Side?  Will he die?  Will Draco have to somehow 
decide between his father and his enemy in terms of even their 
lives?  How will Rowling handle Lucius's presence if Draco joins the 
other side?  Did Snape have to forsake his family or his friends when 
he forsook Voldemort and his cause?  Zoe, glad you brought this up.  
Lots of interesting things to come.

Devin, who prays that February, or at least March, sees some 
announcement about OotP's release date





From devin.smither at yale.edu  Sun Feb  3 05:18:51 2002
From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 05:18:51 -0000
Subject: James as Stag
In-Reply-To: <20020203050923.22223.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a3ih7r+lmlh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34557

> --- jrwilkens <wilke013 at g...> wrote:
> > Andrew MacIan <andrew_macian at y...> wrote:
> > > So, for James to appear as a stag is in line with
> > > being a *very* strong protector symbol, both for
> > Lupin
> > > and his other friends, as well as for his son.
> > 
> > I agree that as a symbol James As Stag works quite
> > well and especially works as Harry's Patronus.  My 
> > problem with James As Stag is a practical one.  We
> > have a fairly graphic description of how small a
> > tunnel 
> > exists between the Whomping Willow and the Shrieking
> > Shack.  I can imagine a large dog and a werewolf 
> > getting in and out.  But can you really picture a
> > large stag with full set of prongs managing in the
> > narrow 
> > confines!!
> 
> 
> So, yes, for lack of given direction, I have
> *definite* problems with a 14- to 16-point buck (at
> about 14 hh) wandering down that tunnel without a
> *lot* of cursing and swearing on his part.

How about if, as they're marching down the tunnel together, James 
goes first as a HUMAN, blocked from Lupin as a werewolf by Sirius as 
a very big dog.  Upon getting to where there's a little more room 
(the Shrieking Shack or near the Whomping Willow), James then 
transforms.  Or if Lupin as werewolf is injuring Sirius too much with 
this plan, couldn't Sirius and Peter join Remus, get him to some pre-
arranged place, and have James join up later, having transformed into 
a stag once he has room.  I sure the problem could have been worked 
around.

Devin, who's all for finding problems and then trying to give the 
author as much room as necessary for a solution





From Caeser56 at si.rr.com  Sun Feb  3 05:43:46 2002
From: Caeser56 at si.rr.com (caes56)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 05:43:46 -0000
Subject: Harry, Draco, and Lucius
Message-ID: <a3iimi+ihja@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34558

-------Zoe Hooch Wrote:------------

>I have begun to think that in one of three remaining books, there 
is 
>going to be a confrontation between Lucius and Harry that will test 
>Draco and cause him to question his unquestioning loyalty to his 
>father and that Draco will come to Harry's rescue in some way. Or 
>that Harry will somehow come to Draco's rescue, and when Draco is 
>forced to choose between the dark side his father represents and 
>the 
>golden side that Harry and Dumbledore et. al. represent, Draco may 
>well move to the golden side and reject Voldemort and Death Eaters. 
----------------------------------

    I apologize for not knowing the specific reference, but I know 
there was an interview with JKR where she specifically stated that 
Draco and Harry will NOT be working together in any of the future 
books, and I am assuming this was in response to a growing feeling 
similar to yours. Personally, I think it'd be a nice twist, but it's 
too... I guess the term would be obvious and common. My own theory 
on this subject is that, as many people have pointed out in the 
past, that Draco is too cowardly to bother with anything. Rather, I 
believe he's going to continue to talk about LV and being on his 
side, but only behind the teachers backs. as is evidenced in the 
canon, Draco is all talk until someone with more power(though not 
nessecarily authority) comes by. I say power specifically because we 
see instances where Draco is badmouthing Harry and company, but 
stops when Prof. McGonagall comes by- but in CoS, when Draco sees 
Harry and Ron as Crabbe and Goyle, he tells Percy off without fear.
      
However, in order to be the first to write a theory in 
opposition to my own:-), how about this second theory. In CoS, when 
Ron and Harry are transfigured into Crabbe and Goyle, Malfoy tells 
them that his dad wouldn't tell him who the Heir of Slytherin was- 
but if you all also remember, Lucious Malfoy was also said to tell 
Draco to stay out of it- maybe that is why Draco isn't ....well, so 
forthright and more active. I think I can state with a lot of 
certainty, at least through book 4, that Draco is nothing more than 
a coward. but what if he were not quite as cowardly as he appeared; 
but rather, what if he was being held back by his dad? I don't mean 
to say that I am evil, but if I were in Lucius' seat, I might do 
the same- look at it from his point of view. We all know Hogwarts is 
supposed to be the best wizarding school- Hermione states in GoF 
that it is widely considered the best, and although we know Draco 
said his dad was thinking of sending him elsewhere, he still sent 
Draco to Hogwarts. So, it being the best school available, we also 
can state with certainty that Hogwarts is a good school where DE's 
would not be accepted, nor would people openly aligned with the Dark 
Wizards. So, knowing those facts, would it not be sensible for Draco 
to sort of hide in the background, not letting on too much that is 
is supporting his father? We all know he is in support of LV, we 
also can safely assume giving the current evidence from the canon 
that the teachers know it as well("my father says this...my father 
says that...My father blah blah blah), but we also know that 
Dumbledore believes in giving everybody at least one chance, and 
that as long as Lucius retains influence over the board of directors
(is that the right term? I forget and I am too lazy to get my books 
right now:-)) of the school, they will not allow Prof. Dumbledore to 
expel Draco. So, he's probably holding Draco back from risking 
anything because doing so would give Prof. Dumbledore an excuse to 
throw Draco out.
     Well, those are my thoughts. Any disagreements? Corrections? 
I'd love to hear what you have to say!


-Vin





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Feb  3 07:51:22 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 07:51:22 -0000
Subject: Age Line / Ron (not SHIP) / 1492 / OWLs & NEWTs / Prosthetic Leg & robes/OT 
Message-ID: <a3iq5q+vk58@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34559

Cindy Sphynx wrote of Dumbledore's Age Line:

> I think the younger students were just blowing smoke and didn't 
> really want to compete in the Tournament. That would have required 
> immense talent beyond one's years, at the  risk of being burned 
> alive by a dragon or skrewt, drowned, etc. It makes some sense 
> that only Fred and George would have tried it, as they are Brave
> Gryffindors. 

Dumbledore told the twins that Madam Pomfrey was "already attending to 
Miss Fawcett, of Ravenclaw, and Mr Summers, of Hufflepuff, both of 
whom decided to age themselves up a little, too."

I previously wrote that I hypothesize that this Summers is that 
Fawcett's boyfriend and they did the Age Potion together, because 
attempting to cheat doesn't fit the Hufflepuff stereotype. 

Shahara LeFay wrote:

> I just don't see the Weaslys doing much for Ron...except inviting
> Harry to their house.

Ron was allowed to invite TWO friends to the Quidditch World Cup and 
none of the other Weasleys invited any guest. 

Grey Wolf wrote:

> I, being Spanish, feel that I must explain (at least partially) the
> events surrounding the Jewish expulsion.

Oh, dear, I know that talking about current events or the Holocaust 
can hurt people's feelings, but hadn't realised that talking about 
500 years ago would get people riled up. 

> Carlos I (V of Germany) and Felipe II (sorry if the monarchs' names
> are in Spanish, I don't know what English historians call them),

Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, and Philip II.

J. R. Wilkins wrote:

> tell me if there are anything similar to these delightfully named 
> tests taken by Hogwarts students in the British system?  

O-levels (taken at the end of Fifth year) and A-levels (taken at the 
end of Seventh year). A-levels have been renamed GCSE since JKR's 
schooldays. You can search the archives for O-level, A-level, GCSE. 
The archives can be accessed at:

http://www.yahoogroups.com/messages/HPforGrownups (messages since 
8/24/2000)
http://www.yahoogroups.com/messages/HPforGrownups-Archives (messages 
before that)

Barb wrote:

> Moody needs a prosthetic leg and eye (magic won't just miraculously
> replace the former body parts). 

We do not KNOW that. Maybe Madam Pomfrey or some other healer could 
regrow Moody's leg, eye, and the missing part of his nose, but Moody 
is too paranoid to allow anyone to mess around with his body like 
that: suppose the new body part was booby-trapped to turn against him 
in a crisis?

> With this in mind, now one has to wonder why one can't put a fairly
> long-lasting transfiguration spell on any garment to give it any 
> appearance one might wish. 

I'm thinking that some of the doorways at Hogwarts are bespelled so 
that they Finite Incantatem any Charms or Transfigurations on people 
who go through them, which would explain why Hermione had to use a 
Potion on her hair instead of Charming it, and why Ron doesn't Charm 
his clothing to look different (as distinguished from making some 
permanenent changes like cutting off the lace and maybe sewing up 
holes), and why fake Moody had to use Polyjuice Potion instead of 
Transfiguring his appearance.

The MechaniMagus Moderator wrote:

> - If you feel that you ought to label your post "OT," that's a 
> signal that it shouldn't be here.

People who would rather be on a Yahoogroup that doesn't have rules 
(except Yahoo's Terms of Service) could join Harry Potter Anonymous, 
which recently has become EXTREMELY active with newbies. 
http://www.yahoogroups.com/messages/harrypotteranonymous/






From andrew_macian at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  3 08:14:54 2002
From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 00:14:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: James as Stag
In-Reply-To: <a3ih7r+lmlh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020203081454.29434.qmail@web9504.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34560

Greetings from Andrew!

"Never multiply entities....

--- uilnslcoap <devin.smither at yale.edu> wrote:
> > --- jrwilkens <wilke013 at g...> wrote:
> > > Andrew MacIan <andrew_macian at y...> wrote:
> > > > So, for James to appear as a stag is in line
> with
> > > > being a *very* strong protector symbol, both
> for
> > > Lupin
> > > > and his other friends, as well as for his son.
> > > 
> > > I agree that as a symbol James As Stag works
> quite
> > > well and especially works as Harry's Patronus. 
> My 
> > > problem with James As Stag is a practical one. 
> We
> > > have a fairly graphic description of how small a
> > > tunnel 
> > > exists between the Whomping Willow and the
> Shrieking
> > > Shack.  I can imagine a large dog and a werewolf
> 
> > > getting in and out.  But can you really picture
> a
> > > large stag with full set of prongs managing in
> the
> > > narrow 
> > > confines!!
> > 
> > 
> > So, yes, for lack of given direction, I have
> > *definite* problems with a 14- to 16-point buck
> (at
> > about 14 hh) wandering down that tunnel without a
> > *lot* of cursing and swearing on his part.
> 
> How about if, as they're marching down the tunnel
> together, James 
> goes first as a HUMAN, blocked from Lupin as a
> werewolf by Sirius as 
> a very big dog.  Upon getting to where there's a
> little more room 
> (the Shrieking Shack or near the Whomping Willow),
> James then 
> transforms.  Or if Lupin as werewolf is injuring
> Sirius too much with 
> this plan, couldn't Sirius and Peter join Remus, get
> him to some pre-
> arranged place, and have James join up later, having
> transformed into 
> a stag once he has room.  I sure the problem could
> have been worked 
> around.

...without necessity."  Or so William of Ockham was
quoted as saying.

Now, I'm all for letting an author having as much room
to swing as many cats as he/she wants or needs. 
Again, however, we're speculating in utter darkness
without the benefit of Rowling's illumination...or an
AN-PVS 63 night vision system.

Given that, IIRC, Black was recalling a general
sequence of events, I would offer that it would be
very unlikely for James to have manifested his other
shape in the tunnel, but as I noted in the message you
partially quoted, weres/alternate forms come in all
shapes and sizes, so who knows (saving Rowling) how
large Prongs was, or could be? We do have Harry's
*version* of James' manifested shape, but that, too,
is a secondary source.

So...{shrug}.  I certainly don't know for sure.

> 
> Devin, who's all for finding problems and then
> trying to give the 
> author as much room as necessary for a solution

Vide supra...with the caveat that, in the end, we may
very well never know 'for certain'.

Cheers,

Drieux

=====
ICQ # 76184391

'Each game of chess means there's one less
      Variation left to be played;
 Each day got through means one or two less
      Mistakes remain to be made.'
      --'Chess' by Sir Tim Rice

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com



From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Sun Feb  3 08:50:01 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 08:50:01 -0000
Subject: Snape's cooking
In-Reply-To: <a3hvkg+dtj3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3itjp+pvio@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34561

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> I'd also imagine that cooking works the same way; Molly knows how to 
> make sauce out of her wand, but Snape might not.
> 
> Cindy (who definitely wouldn't trust Snape's cooking)

I'm not so sure about that; I don't know much cooking myself, but I 
always got the sensation that it's pretty important in any dish to know 
exactly when and how much to add of diferent spices (from salt to the 
really expensive ones), which is something Snape actually excels at: 
potions, and "the beauty of softly simmering fumes, the delicate power 
of liquids". That could apply to cooking, and most of the Harryverse 
potions tend to look like cooking with strange ingredients. Thus, if he 
had a good recipe (sp?), he'd probably would follow it long perfectly. 
What I wouldn't do is eat anything he hasn't tasted himself (and even 
then, I'd be cautious), but anything he'd preper would probably taste 
wonderful.

Hope that helps

Grey Wolf





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Feb  3 09:33:04 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 09:33:04 -0000
Subject: Humor(and Malcolm Baddock)
In-Reply-To: <a3gis6+v1hi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3j04g+uoiu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34562

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" <theennead at a...> wrote:

> Then, I've never much cared for the twins. (snip) And *hissing* 
> poor little eleven-year-old Malcolm Baddock at the Sorting 
> Ceremony, just because he got sorted into Slytherin.  
> (SNIP) they start to hiss at you.  As if they *hate* you, or 
> something!  And you've never even *met* them before!
> 
> Sheesh.  Poor little Malcolm Baddock.

It is to be hoped that Malcolm is from an old Slytherin family, so he 
understands (from parents or older siblings telling him) that 
Gryffindors and Slytherins hate each other, so being booed by the 
Gryffindors is only typical Gryffindor nasty behavior. I imagine that 
a Muggle-born student would not have a pleasant time with bigotted 
Slytherins and that a wizard-born student would not have a pleasant 
time with non-Slytherin parents who learned that heesh had been 
Sorted into Slytherin. JKR surely intended "Malcolm Baddock" (MAL... 
BAD...) to be a Slytherin name.




From hollydaze at btinternet.com  Sun Feb  3 11:50:35 2002
From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 11:50:35 -0000
Subject: OWLs & NEWTs - Correction.
References: <a3iq5q+vk58@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <02fe01c1aca9$150e6540$0c5b073e@j0dhe>

No: HPFGUIDX 34563

Cat lady wrote:
> O-levels (taken at the end of Fifth year) and A-levels (taken at the 
> end of Seventh year). A-levels have been renamed GCSE since JKR's 
> schooldays. You can search the archives for O-level, A-level, GCSE. 

Actually it is O Levels that got re-named GCSEs, A levels still exist but have been cut into two tear courses, with exams at the end of the first AND second year. The first year being called AS levels and the second year being full A levels: 2 AS levels equals 1 A level. 
However in the time that JK would have started writing these books only GCSEs and A levels would have existed and the school years would still have been number from Yr. 1 to Yr. 7, as the years in Primary (infant and junior school) go form reception (Yr. 0) up to Yr. 6, then you would start Secondary school and go back into Yr. 1. The current (NEW) way carries on from Junior school and goes Yr. 7 - Yr. 13.
GCSEs would be studied in years 10 and 11 (Old years 4 and 5)
A Levels would be studied in years 12 and 13 (Old years 6 and 7)

Hence in 1990 you would have:
Yr. 0, Yr. 1, Yr. 2, Yr. 3, Yr. 4, Yr. 5, Yr. 6 / Yr. 1, Yr. 2, Yr. 3, Yr. 4, Yr. 5 (GCSE), Yr. 6, Yr. 7 (A level).

Now it goes:
Yr. 0, Yr. 1, Yr. 2, Yr. 3, Yr. 4, Yr. 5, Yr. 6 / Yr. 7, Yr. 8, Yr. 9, Yr. 10, Yr. 11 (GCSE), Yr. 12, Yr. 13 (A Level). 

If anyone is confused then just write to me off list I have an email I wrote about 3 months ago that explains the English system in some depth (although not complete depth) that I can send you if your really that interested! I've posted it before so I'm not to keen on re-posting it unless a lot of people are really interested (last time I did that I got into trouble!).

HOLLYDAZE!!!


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




From hollydaze at btinternet.com  Sun Feb  3 11:50:32 2002
From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 11:50:32 -0000
Subject: Lucius and power (was: Harry, Draco, and Lucius)
References: <a3iimi+ihja@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <02fd01c1aca9$1498e720$0c5b073e@j0dhe>

No: HPFGUIDX 34564

Vin wrote:
> I apologise for not knowing the specific reference, but I know 
> there was an interview with JKR where she specifically stated that 
> Draco and Harry will NOT be working together in any of the future 
> books, and I am assuming this was in response to a growing feeling 
> similar to yours. 

That was in response to a question where someone asked if Harry and Draco would be forced to work together even if they are on separate sides. This question came about because there was a rumour that something would happen where Draco and Harry are forced to work together, such as they get trapped somewhere and have to work together to get out or they face someone and have to defeat that person together. It does not count out the possibility that they will end up on the same side, just that they won't be actively working with one another.

> So, it being the best school available, we also 
> can state with certainty that Hogwarts is a good school where DE's 
> would not be accepted, nor would people openly aligned with the Dark 
> Wizards. 

I wouldn't say we have anything to say that with "certainty". In fact from what has been said in the books I would say the opposite. Dumbledore firmly believes that people's choices make them what they are so he is less likely to think "his/her dad/mum was a deatheater, so he/she will be too". He's more likely to think that it is that individuals choice as to what he/she will become and if he can make them make the right choice (not become a DE) then he will do everything he can to help them along the way. Also having DE kids at the school could be a good tactic. Isn't there a saying that is something like "keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" (Sorry I can't remember the exact thing). Knowing Dumbledore's nack at picking up information it is very likely that he would want to do this. Keeping his ear to the ground he might actually get bits of information he needs to know from hearing rumours around the school, things that people are saying etc.


> as long as Lucius retains influence over the board of directors
> (is that the right term? I forget and I am too lazy to get my books 
> right now:-)) of the school, they will not allow Prof. Dumbledore to 
> expel Draco. 
But he doesn't have that much influence over the governors now. Firstly he is not on the board of governors anymore and secondly, I got the distinct impression that at least one of the governors was not frightened by him - Why do I think this? Let me explain:
Lucius did threaten them all to get them to sack Dumbledore in Book 2, but by the end of the book they had all written to Dumbledore saying they wanted him back and that Lucius had threatened them. They can't have been that influenced or frightened of Lucius if they all forgot about his threats and wrote to Dumbledore at the end of the book can they? Either that or there is one of the governors (a leader so to speak) who had the courage to stand up to Lucius and so the others followed suit, or the leader talked them round. I don't think Lucius has as much power at Hogwarts as he would like to think he has, even though he does have a lot of influence at the ministry. I would think this is (as with many other things) due to the attitudes of Fudge and Dumbledore. Fudge doesn't have the sense to see Lucius for what he is (a death eater), nor does he have the courage to stand up to him. Dumbledore can see straight through Lucius and does have the courage to stand up to him.
     
HOLLYDAZE!!!


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




From igenite_olwyn at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  3 10:06:40 2002
From: igenite_olwyn at yahoo.com (Olwyn)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 10:06:40 -0000
Subject: OWLs & NEWTs 
References: <a3iq5q+vk58@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002f01c1ac9a$7b99c2a0$0200a8c0@Nshare>

No: HPFGUIDX 34565

Catlady wrote:

>>O-levels (taken at the end of Fifth year) and A-levels (taken at the 
end of Seventh year). A-levels have been renamed GCSE since JKR's 
schooldays. You can search the archives for O-level, A-level, GCSE. <<

And the Scottish version of O-levels/Standard Grades (Taken in 4th year High School), Highers (I think they changed the name recently, but they're the equivalent of A-levels and taken in 5th year) and CSYS or I believe they're called 'Higher stills' now (taken in the optional 6th year)

Olly


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





From ewe2 at can.org.au  Sun Feb  3 13:38:28 2002
From: ewe2 at can.org.au (Sean Dwyer)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 00:38:28 +1100
Subject: Astrological Harry (WAS  VITTLES, the HP bestiary, irony vs sarcasm, counselling, excusing vs understanding, accents)
In-Reply-To: <010b01c1abae$f222a320$4422ddcb@price>
References: <010b01c1abae$f222a320$4422ddcb@price>
Message-ID: <20020203133828.GA1089@can.org.au>

No: HPFGUIDX 34566

On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 04:59:50PM +1100, Tabouli wrote:
<snippety doo dahh>
> If it's any comfort, in Chinese astrology the Rat is quick-witted, loyal,
> resourceful and charming (Tabouli, who was born in the Year of the Rat, nods
> approvingly).  For that matter, the Snake is wise, elegant, shrewd and
> philosophical.  The Dragon, of course, is impetuous, forthright, passionate
> and a born leader.  Note that there's more to it than just the year of your
> birth, as I've seen implied - there's also the element of the year you were
> born in, the moon you were born under, the hour of the day you were born,
> and so on.  I'm a Water Rat, born under the moon of the Horse, in the hour
> of the Horse.  In Western astrology, Gemini with Virgo rising.  While we're
> musing on science, religion and belief systems in general, do we have any
> keen astrologers in our midst?  (Ron as Aries, Hermione as Virgo, Harry as
> Leo...?  Whatever you think of astrology, you have to wonder if JKR took a
> peek in a book when setting their birthdays...)  My left brain scoffs
> disgustedly at such things, but my right brain loves it so much I indulge it
> now and then!
<snippity aye>

Ooooh I love a challenge :)

Before I start, interested listys may want to look at
http://www.geocities.com/ewe2_au/hp/ for the relevant charts I am about to
discuss.

Western astrology is probably more time-dependant than Eastern. Our biggest
problem is that we don't know exactly when Harry, Ron and Hermione are born,
and I don't exactly know _where_ Ron and Hermione were born.  So we start with
a basic noon chart for the day of birth, and then try and work out where the
Ascendant is, which will give us the probable houses.

Harry is the best chance of getting somewhere, so I'll concentrate on him in
this post (if you can give me geographical coordinates for Ron and Hermione,
do tell me, and I'll work on them a bit more!). He's a Leo, we know that much.
The Ascendant represents the outward/physical temperament of the person. I can
say straight away that Harry is one of the "quiet Leo's", who are no less
regal and leadership material; they are just not as extroverted. 

For me there's two good possibilities: a Libra or Aquarius ascendant. I'm wary
of the Libra choice only because it fits with a birthtime anywhere from
10.30am to 2pm, too close to a noon chart. This leaves Aquarius. Now, the
Midheaven position represents career and ego, and is often influenced by the
father. With Aquarius rising, we have a midheaven in Sagittarius, the hunter..
a centaur :) OK, Prongs is a stag, but you get my drift :)) A further
correlation is the Moon in Aries, which emphasises his courage and willingness
to face challenges. This is also the 1st House making it doubly important.

So my guess is that Harry was born at about that time. What makes the chart
even more interesting is how the planets are all in a "cauldron" opposite the
ascendant, and in the night-time quadrants. A rough opposition between the
Ascendant and the Sun Sign indicates great internal conflict and a very
complex and powerful person. The ascendant is "leading" the planets to the
light; Harry is being led to an unknown destiny.

I could go on, but I'd like to hear from other astrologers what they think.
Does this fit Harry? What about Ron (a Pisces) and Hermione (a Virgo), his
"court"? Incidentally, Ron has some very interesing numerology, and suggests
he will indeed be a sacrifice.

Sean (take that Trelawney!)


-- 
Sean Dwyer <ewe2 at can.org.au>
Web: http://www.geocities.com/ewe2_au/




From meboriqua at aol.com  Sun Feb  3 14:51:53 2002
From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 14:51:53 -0000
Subject: Harry and Draco and Lucius
In-Reply-To: <a3ib4t+9qlq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3jiq9+cjh6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34567

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

<there is going to be a confrontation between Lucius and Harry that 
will test Draco and cause him to question his unquestioning loyalty to 
his father and that Draco will come to Harry's rescue in some way. Or  
that Harry will somehow come to Draco's rescue, and when Draco is  
forced to choose between the dark side his father represents and the  
golden side that Harry and Dumbledore et. al. represent, Draco may  
well move to the golden side and reject Voldemort and Death Eaters.>

I agree that Draco has oodles of possibilities and I'm hoping he will 
be more than just Harry's enemy at school.  However, I don't see him 
saving Harry at the expense of his own father.  I find that a bit 
cliched.  Remember, there was a confrontation between Lucius and Harry 
in CoS because of Dobby and Harry won.  Nor do I necessarily see Draco 
simply rebelling against his own father because he suddenly "sees the 
light".  I see something more complicated than that.

Some of the possibilities I see are a scenario where Draco witnesses 
his father in the subordinate (and not so proud) position he holds 
under Voldemort.  Draco thinks his father is the Big Wig around the 
wizarding world; seeing Lucius kiss the hem of Voldie's robes may be a 
shock to Draco and something he decides he won't want to do.  I can 
also see Draco turning out a lot worse than Lucius and possibly 
turning on Lucius himself.  Then there's the chance of Draco falling 
madly in love with a nice girl from Gryffindor...

If Draco does turn himself around and away from the Death Eater status 
he is currently heading towards, I hope he doesn't end up a sweetie 
pie.  Isn't that the reason Snape is so popular?  He's good, but not 
really *nice*.  I have a hard time picturing Draco saving Harry, 
though, especially because I think Harry is much stronger and because 
as of now, Draco seems to want nothing more than to give Harry grief.  

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




From midwife34 at aol.com  Sun Feb  3 15:57:20 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 15:57:20 -0000
Subject: What does Voldemort fear?
In-Reply-To: <a3g6q2+a2t9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3jml0+59a0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34568

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mellienel2" <mellienel2 at y...> wrote:
> > > 
> >
> > 
> > 
> Personally, I fell Vmort made the bad guy mistake of equating the 
> ability to kill and cause damage with power. Dumbledore, on the 
other 
> hand, values information as true power and was happy at learning 
> Vmort used Harry's blood because he knows Vmort's weakness and saw 
> his plan coming together. Vmort was fearful because he saw his plan 
> coming apart.
> 
> This is a major point here, ability can't really help Voldy achieve
his goals if he is missing pertinent information like:

a. My wand has a twin, and it belongs to Harry Potter.I saw nothing 
in canon that lead me to believe he was aware of this, nor that he 
deduced it from the show down in GoF.
b. Voldy is still not quite sure of the extent of Harry's abilities, 
or the effects of the failed AK curse, and how that might have 
affected Harry's abilities.Ex- inability of the possessed Professor 
Quirrel to touch Harry, Harry's ability to speak parsel tongue which 
aided him in hunting down the basilisk. There is no prior wizarding 
confrontation where a wizard or witch deflected the AK curse to base 
possible assumptions of abilities.
c. At this point in the series, Voldy is out of the 
wizarding "loop",so to speak, and has no way to gather this 
information up until now( It doesn't appear that Pettigrew offers 
much insight into Harry's abilities, despite that fact that he was in 
close contact with Harry for 3 years in rat form). This may change as 
he is now reunited with the other loyal DE's.
 
Will Voldy learn from his past confrontations that " Prior 
preparation prevents poor performance" ? 
> 
> BUT YOU OVERLOOK that you wands are from the same Phoenix!
> 
> Simply, Voldemort's in DENIAL, his mind twisted by megalomania 
> ignoring the fact that he isn't God. The fear was Valdemort being 
> shown his shortcomings and facing the unknown. He will almost 
> certainly forget his failure soon after Harry escaped and plan his 
> war. He may have to reformulate plan, checking his followers 
> allegiance and gauging his foes weaknesses. 
> 
> So if you were an insane nearomnipotant Dark Lord, who would be 
your 
> first target: Potter or Dumbledore? Where would your attack come 
> through: Ministry of Magic? Giants? Maybe attack Hogwarts through 
> Durmstrang?
> 
> 
> "uncmark"

As I said before, we are not positive what conclusions Voldy came to 
when Harry's wand reversed the spells from his wand. Is he aware of 
the fact that brother wands don't operate correctly when dueling? 
>From Voldy's experience with the duel, did he indeed realize Harry 
had the brother wand to his wand ? 

For the questions regarding Voldy strategy, here is a likely 
scenario. Knock out Dumbledore first as he provides protection. Since 
Dumbledore taught Voldy, both are well aware of each others 
limitations and can plan accordingly. While knocking out the source 
of protection, have the DE's gather information on just how capable 
Harry is as a wizard and where Harry's deficits are. Once Dumbledore 
is out of the picture, go for Harry with plenty of prior planning for 
possible foul -ups. Voldy needs a plan A, a plan B, and a plan C.

Jo Ellen




From mercia at ireland.com  Sun Feb  3 15:31:56 2002
From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 15:31:56 -0000
Subject: About Ron again
Message-ID: <a3jl5c+5tqg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34569

Thanks to everyone who replied. Some very interesting points but I'm 
still a bit worried. The betrayal by the friend who is closer than a 
brother (as Ron is for Harry) is particularly tragic and was thought 
to be the case with James and Sirius. Since we now know that to be 
false it could be that it will be a reality for Harry and Ron. I 
still very much hope not and want Ron to have the strength of 
character to resist any temptations to evil but it would be a very 
strong theme. I also saw the documentary on JKR and I'm not sure 
basing a character on your best friend necessarily prevents any 
writer from doing something nasty with that character if he or she 
thinks it necessary for the story. It can get writers very disliked 
by their nearest and dearest! Still it's only speculation at this 
point and until we get the complete canon nothing will be certain.

I don't think Hermione would be susceptible in the same way because I 
think she a) has more insight into herself and others, b) has more 
strength of character and c) is too unshakeable in her loyalty to 
Harry. But I may be overly biased in her favour. I have a lot of 
fellow feeling for Hermione. 

For the benefit of Eileen, my name does not come from the Anglo Saxon 
kingdom. My father made it up when I was born (it's a long story and 
too OT to go into here) and knew nothing about any Anglo Saxon 
kingdoms. Nor had he read Tolkien (though I have and hadn't picked up 
the Tolkien link you mention). I did Old English at university and 
did find a bit strange reading about Offa, King of Mercia, but I 
assure you I wasn't called after the kingdom. Incidently I believe 
there is still a West Mercia police service in England. 

meglet2/Mercia 





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Sun Feb  3 16:52:48 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 16:52:48 -0000
Subject: Wizard's Names
In-Reply-To: <20020201.215108.-161711.0.kokobreen@juno.com>
Message-ID: <a3jpt0+l14k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34570

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., christine m breen <kokobreen at j...> wrote:
I remember hearing it or reading that what you can identify, you can 
control.  Such as your fears--identify them and you can start to 
control them.  Identify your weaknesses--you cannot change them until 
you identify them.  Also from reading many sci-fi books--in those books 
if you knew the name of the demon you could control it.  So perhaps 
Dumbledore wanting Voldemort's name used was so Harry would gain 
control of his fear of Voldemort and ulitimately gain control of 
Voldemort (i.e. defeat him).
Christine
----------------

This leads to an interesting point: in many fantasy worlds, the "power 
of the true name" (or suitable variances as age, zodiacal sign, etc.) 
is the most powerfull ascendant over a wizard (to the point of adopting 
aliases or even changing names to protect themselves). This does not 
seem to be the case in Potterverse, except in Voldie's case (which is 
probably just a way of facing the terror the name implies), but it does 
give you an insight: when casting particularly difficult spells, do you 
need to know the name of the objective? I'd say no, since AK is pretty 
short (and you don't get more powerful than that), but then again when 
Harry casts accio in the second challenge in GoF, he uses his broom's 
name. Any ideas?

Grey Wolf





From Edblanning at aol.com  Sun Feb  3 16:56:16 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 11:56:16 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] O.W.L.s and N.E.W.T.s/ Lupin's lesson plan
Message-ID: <a0.219dbb2f.298ec5b0@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34571

In a message dated 02/02/02 22:06:42 GMT Standard Time, 
wilke013 at gold.tc.umn.edu writes:


> As an American (well out of high school!) I was curious if anyone familiar 
> with education in Britain could 
> tell me if there are anything similar to these delightfully named tests 
> taken by Hogwarts students in the 
> British system?  In other words, standarized tests taken around age 15 as 
> well as in the last school 
> year?  
> 
> Also what are the twelve possible O.W.L.s one can achieve?  (I'm assuming 
> twelve is maximum based on 
> quotes relating to Percy and Barty Crouch, etal.)  Are passing these tests 
> necessary to graduation and if 
> so, does passing at least one O.W.L. count?
> 
> JRW (who is terribly obsessive-compulsive about tests and likes to know 
> exactly where she stands on 
> them!)
> 

This something I still have to face with my kids and things have been 
changing recently, so someone else please correct me if I'm wrong.
Until recently, in England, you sat GCSEs ( General Certificate of Secondary 
Education) at about 16, in the fifth year and A (Advanced) levels  at 18, in 
the final year of school. (The Scottish system was always a bit different, 
with Highers, which allowed matriculation to Scottish University, the year 
after GCSEs, (if that's what they call them, I'm afraid I pre-date GCSEs, it 
was O levels and SCEs [the Scottish equivalent] in my day).
Now we have a slightly more complicated system. The GCSEs are the same, but 
children are encouraged to keep a wider range of subjects the next year ( 
similar to the Scottish system), getting some sort of half A levels, some of 
which they go on with in their final year to achieve full A levels.
We don't 'graduate' from school the same way as in the US (if I understand 
your system that is - I barely understand ours these days). In my parents' 
day, you used to get a School Leaving Certificate, showing that you had 
matriculated in the required number of subjects. These days, you just have 
the public exam certificates. Employers or educational institutions will 
specify their own requirements. When I applied to (English) university the 
first time round  IIRC it was required that you had something like five or 
seven subjects, including maths and English, with at least two of these at A 
level, although in reality most universities would require more than that. 
When as a graduate, I applied for nurse training, the General Nursing 
Council, as it was then, required 5 O levels. I vividly remember phoning a 
well known hospital to ask for an application form and telling them I was a 
graduate: 'And how many O levels do you have?'  'I'm a gradaute, and I've 
four A levels.' ' Yes, but how many O levels do you have?'

I do find the system at Hogwarts intriguing. How can you get 12 O.W.Ls? 
Hermione wasn't doing that many subects and her timetable was literally 
impossible.
And no, you wouldn't 'graduate' with one O.W.L. as (as indicated above) , 
this isn't a meaningful concept in the British system.
Another strange element is the fact that they start with so few subjects and 
then add more, whereas we tend to start with a lot and drop some in order to 
concentrate on examination subjects. I think I started at secondary school 
with at least thirteen subjects, taking 9 at O level, but having to carry on 
with games and IIRC non-academic music and art. Taking up extra subjects 
would have meant dropping somthing else ( until the sixth from, when it was 
possible to start an A level course in a new subject). Mine was a small 
school, I dare say others had more flexibility and ther are certainly some 
round here that offer an enormous range of subjects ( these tend to be 
private)
I haven't followed the posts about timetabling at Hogwarts closely ( I didn't 
think I could cope!), but I assume they must have a *lot* of lessons on the  
core subjects in the early years, otherwise they'd end up with a lot of free 
periods, something more appropriate to older students.

In a message dated 02/02/02 15:30:16 GMT Standard Time, muridae at muridae.co.uk 
writes:


> moongirlk wrote:
> 
> >--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> >> He doesn't leave a lesson plan for his sub though he knows he'll be
> >> absent.
> >
> >Drat again, can't justify this one except as a plot device to get
> >werewolves on the agenda.
> 
> On the other hand... maybe he didn't anticipate not being able to teach 
> those lessons himself? There's no mention of him being ill or away 
> during termtime other than this once, plus the absence from Christmas 
> dinner. 

I wonder whether it is normal for teachers to substitute for one another? 
At the end of GoF, there were no DADA lessons, the trio had those periods 
free.
I feel sure that it was Snape's initiative to take that lesson, something 
that Lupin might have anticipated, sure ( simply from the malice of the man), 
but not something he *should* have. 
I wonder if Snape keeps meticulous records of his lessons? Probably, he's 
that sort of guy. But I doubt that Dumbledore ever asks for them, or anyone 
else for that matter. The whole running of the school is pretty 
idiosyncratic, isn't it? Can't see them passing an Offsted inspection!

Eloise


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




From Edblanning at aol.com  Sun Feb  3 17:11:26 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 12:11:26 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Faithful servant (was paranoia), Neville's name/Gran
Message-ID: <2d.17d7174d.298ec93e@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34572

Spy Game Fan writes
Eloise:

> What if he's been saving Harry to preserve him for that restorative 
(yikes!) 
> 
> *potion*?
> 

>Which makes ya wonder if Crouch was really Voldie's faithful servant at 
>Hogwarts. I mean only Crouch says that he is that servant. Couldn't that 
>faithful servant be another teacher -- or hell, why not a student?

>Does anyone have any theories on who  could have it in for Harry?

>The most obvious is Snape, but things tend not to be too obvious with JKR. 
>Sirius could be guilty after all... now that would be a twist.

-SpyGameFan (who is also becoming quite paranoid)

Just as I was getting over it all......
I think that Crouch *is* the faithful servant, although I have wondered about 
others including dear Severus and of course (ducking the brickbats) Bagman.
Voldemort is clear at the beginning of GoF that his faithful servant will 
return and will be installed at Hogwarts. We know that by that time he has 
questioned Bertha and knows about Crouch Jr.. It is Voldemort and Pettigrew 
who rescue Crouch Jr. from his father's.....It seems clear that having Crouch 
at Hogwarts is Voldemort's plan : it's not something Crouch is doing off his 
own bat and it is Crouch who engineers both Harry's winning of the tournament 
and the transformation of the cup into a port key. No. Much as I would like 
to find some convoluted theory which implicates someone else (only for the 
sake of it), I think Crouch *is* the faithful servant.
Having said that, Crouch does like to blow his own trumpet. His confidence 
leads him  to show off by walking right on the edge, saying and doing 
outrageous things that ought to give the game away. I actually wonder if that 
is one of the reasons for the Unforgivable Curse lessons. I don't for a 
minute believe that Dumbledore wants him to imperio the kids ( although you 
never know with Dumbledore), but I *do* think that Crouch would enjoy doing 
those curses again (hey, I suppose those *were* spiders in that jar?). I 
think perhaps teaching Harry to resist the Imperius is perhaps part of this 
too, though I don't know if I can explain it. Perhaps it makes him a more 
worthy opponent. Perhaps he thinks that if Harry can resist Imperius, 
Voldemort will be more likely to use Cruciatus or Avada Kadavera.

Alexander:

>One must be a complete paranoic to search for the
    hedgehog at the top of a fir tree.
        Pavel Shumilov.

Haven't seen one yet, but I'm still looking!


Nina ( Hello!) writes:

> I come from Lancashire in northern England, near towns such as 
> Manchester and Liverpool.  In this part of the world, surnames such 
> as Ramsbottom and Longbottom are very common, with town and village 
> names that are similar.    
> 
> Likewise Neville (and his Uncle Algie) are very northern, working 
> class names. Also mentioned in PS (SS) is my home town of Blackpool, 
> where Neville was dangled off the end of the pier.  For those from 
> foreign parts, Blackpool is a VERY brash seaside resort (often called 
> Vegas-by-the-sea) that is visited by many Brits for a day trip or 
> summer holiday (never confirmed but I'd bet JKR had a trip to 
> Blackpool as a child).  
> 

    

I'm so glad you said this. It is exactly my feeling on the name (my mother 
was a Lancashire lass), but I wasn't as sure of my ground as you are. It 
sounds just like the sort of snotty-nosed kid in clogs she would have taught 
in her young days. Well, maybe the clogs are an exaggeration, but they were 
certainly worn when she was a child. It's a very old-fashioned name, as well. 
I was at infants school (guess what, near Manchester), with a Neville, but I 
don't think I 've ever met one of my generation or younger since.
And what about Neville's Gran? I now have a vision of her as the archetypal 
northern seaside boarding house landlady - 'No sand in the bedrooms. Tea's at 
6. Don't be late.'....Although I suppose she, like the chocolcate frogs could 
have Monty Python antecedents: they were based, I believe, on Cambridge 
bedders ( the women who clean and generally 'do' for Cambridge students who 
live in College). 

Eloise


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




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Feb  3 17:37:36 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 17:37:36 -0000
Subject: James as Stag
In-Reply-To: <a3ih7r+lmlh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3jsh0+ompd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34573

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uilnslcoap" <devin.smither at y...> 
wrote:
  I can imagine a large dog and a werewolf 
> > > getting in and out.  But can you really picture a
> > > large stag with full set of prongs managing in the
> > > narrow 
> > > confines!!
> > 
> > 
> > So, yes, for lack of given direction, I have
> > *definite* problems with a 14- to 16-point buck (at
> > about 14 hh) wandering down that tunnel without a
> > *lot* of cursing and swearing on his part.
> 
> How about if, as they're marching down the tunnel together, 
James  goes first as a HUMAN, <snip> I sure the problem could 
have been worked 
> around.

I am sure it was JKR's intention to make the tunnel too small for 
James to negotiate as a stag. It would undermine the drama of 
James risking his own life to save Snape if James could have 
transformed.

Pippin




From muridae at muridae.co.uk  Sun Feb  3 16:10:03 2002
From: muridae at muridae.co.uk (Muridae)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 16:10:03 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weasley holiday trips
In-Reply-To: <a3ic8e+pvg6@eGroups.com>
References: <09d001c1ac3f$cea63240$f7fc7ad5@j0dhe> <a3ic8e+pvg6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <KRb480KbDWX8Ewwa@muridae.co.uk>

No: HPFGUIDX 34574

blpurdom wrote:

>> Barb wrote:
>> > Except that the Weasleys didn't pay for the trip to Egypt out of
>> > pocket; they won a contest.  Otherwise, we don't hear of any
>> > holiday trips taken, not even to visit relatives
>>
>> Yes we do... in book 1 Mr and Mrs Wealsey go to visit Charlie in
>> Romania, that is why Ron doesn't go home for Christmas!
>
>Right.  Only Mr. and Mrs. Weasley went; they didn't take the whole
>family.  THAT would have constituted a family holiday trip!

A supplementary thought: maybe *Charlie* paid for his parents to come 
over and visit him? He's unlikely to have been able to bring the entire 
family over, but as someone who's young, single and a wage-earner, he 
may well have more money to spare than his parents, and have wanted his 
proud parents to see where he's working and what he's doing.

-- 
Muridae



From muridae at muridae.co.uk  Sun Feb  3 17:37:31 2002
From: muridae at muridae.co.uk (Muridae)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 17:37:31 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts Exams and education
In-Reply-To: <a3hq3t+10g4g@eGroups.com>
References: <a3hpg8+pvu6@eGroups.com> <a3hq3t+10g4g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <PRL584PbVXX8Ewg7@muridae.co.uk>

No: HPFGUIDX 34575

grey_wolf_c wrote:

>--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:
>
>> I believe they have exams set for them at the end of each term:
>> autumn, spring and summer.  It was only the exams at the end of the
>> summer term that were cancelled.
>>
>> --Barb
>
>Do you have any Canon to back that up? I don't recall any exam (not
>even "surprise exams" as the ones I get to keep us students on our toes
>the whole year) apart from the ones just before the summer.
>
>Anyway, has it been discussed the sort of education Harry's year in
>general and Harry himself are receiving? I mean, exams get cancelled
>pretty often (Harry's only done two series of exams in four years), and
>people like Crabbe, Goyle and Longbottom seem to pass without too many
>dificulties. Also, the only known cases of poeple flunking and
>repeating a year are Flint (and it was a flint, thus the name of JKR's
>errors, I think), and some other Quiditch captain (again a possible
>flint). Is it me, or is the education REALLY low-case?

Well, assuming that Hogwarts' school curriculum follows the English 
school model (note that I don't say British, because Scotland has its 
own education system which is somewhat different)... the really 
important exams would come at the end of the fifth and seventh years. 
Fifth year would be the O.W.L.'s (O Level/GCSE equivalents), and seventh 
year would be the N.E.W.T.'s (A Level equivalents).

Exams in other years would be purely internal things to enable the 
teachers to assess the general progress of their students and how much 
of what was being taught them they were actually retaining. Since they 
could probably figure that out to some extent from spot tests thoughout 
the year, plus homework marks and general coursework, the cancellation 
of those exams would be less critical. Although my guess would be that 
the fifth and seventh year students of Harry's second year probably 
*did* sit their O.W.L.'s and N.E.W.T.'s, despite the cancellation of all 
other exams, either at the time or at a rescheduled date later on.

Do we know whether Cedric Diggory was a sixth or seventh year student at 
the time of the TriWizard Tournament? I've always assumed the former, 
but can't remember if his year has ever been stated. Certainly it would 
be more convenient if he were a sixth year student since it would mean 
that neither he nor Harry would have been due to sit any of the 
important exams that year and could therefore be given special 
dispensation not to have to sit the others. I suspect that a number of 
otherwise eligible seventh year students may have declined to enter the 
tournament in order to give their full attention to the N.E.W.T.'s.

Flint's repeated year probably means that he flunked either his O.W.L.'s 
or N.E.W.T.'s and had to resit that year rather than any other. And I'd 
think it most likely that it would have been the O.W.L.'s, since he 
might have simply left and pursued a career that didn't require high 
academic results if he'd done excessively badly on his N.E.W.T.'s but 
had also reached statutory school leaving age.

One thing I do wonder though is what that statutory school leaving age 
is in the wizarding world? Based solely on a comparison with Muggle 
schools, you might expect some students to leave after doing their 
O.W.L.'s, if they weren't academically inclined, and a much smaller 
number from each year stay on into the sixth and seventh year. There's 
nothing in canon to date to indicate that it may be the case, since 
nobody seems to leave before the end of the seventh year, but that may 
merely be the Harry POV and that all of the people he knows in the 
higher years have stayed on, for whatever reason.

It's an interesting thing to speculate on however, if only for the way 
that it might potentially change the balance of power in Harry's year if 
some of the students did leave after the fifth year. Crabbe and Goyle 
aren't particularly bright, so Draco Malfoy might suddenly find himself 
bereft of his two sidekicks. How might that change his behaviour?

-- 
Muridae



From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Feb  3 17:56:14 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 17:56:14 -0000
Subject: Excuses, excuses (more Lupin)
Message-ID: <a3jtju+ftgs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34576

I see people are having fun thinking up reasons why Lupin 
shouldn't be held responsible for his mistakes. Personally, I am 
finding him a much more enjoyable character now that I think of 
him as a screw-up. I really wasn't looking forward to his return 
before.  He was a bit of a yawn to tell you the truth, noble 
werewolf undone by prejudice and hard luck, too good to be true,  
ho-hum. Now I am looking forward to the day when Sirius, who 
has begun to grow up, bless him, grabs both Snape and Lupin 
by the scruffs of their necks and bangs their heads together.

Maybe Snape chose to ignore Lupin's notes and maybe he 
didn't.  But we know they use substitutes at Hogwarts, because 
Professor Grubbly-plank (sp, I haven't got my books handy) fills 
in for Hagrid in GoF.  The trio don't have DADA  every day, so 
probably we're supposed to assume that their classes didn't fall 
on full moons, except that once. 

As for Lupin's boggart lesson, thanks to Gwen's wonderful 
humor post, I can at last support my gut feeling that it wasn't all 
about Neville. Putting Snape in a dress is sexual humor. Not only 
would Neville not come up with that idea on his own, he would 
never have dared to suggest it, in front of a teacher and a class 
of his peers, not in a million years. This is Neville we're talking 
about, thirteen years old, deeply respectful of authority and still 
wears fuzzy bunny slippers. 

It would have far more beneficial for Neville to come up with a 
ridiculous image of Snape on his own even if it took him some 
extra tutoring. In this case Lupin did his homework for him. I think 
Lupin's desire to vent some of his resentment toward Snape 
overrode his excellent teacherly instincts.

Pippin




From midwife34 at aol.com  Sun Feb  3 17:57:11 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 17:57:11 -0000
Subject: Potterverse: Social Psychology - Wizarding Genetics
In-Reply-To: <165924416.20020202134305@tut.by>
Message-ID: <a3jtln+i6ci@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34577

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander <lav at t...> wrote:
>   Greetings!
> 
>   Two little works of mine. Note please that I'm neither a
> social psychologist, nor a genetic engineer. I'm just a
> programmer who has or had both these subjects as his hobby.
> So please be kind with me. And of course, if there are real
> social psychologists, genetic engineers etc etc on the List,
> feedback is most welcome.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>       WIZARDING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
> 
>  
> 
>   Wizarding World in general is much more adventurous and
> prone to risk-taking than Muggle World.
> 
>   Here we come to contradiction. We have a conservative
> community of risk takers. Surely something that cannot exist
> for long.
> 
>   Or can it?
> 
>   Of course, social strain will be great in the Wizarding
> World. We can suppose that many conflicts which would become
> a subject of hot debate in Muggle World will turn into real
> wars in the Wizarding World.
> 
>   So we come to the final conclusion. Wizarding World exists
> in a state of permanent war. Something similar to Orwell's
> "1984". Of course we don't mean that Wizarding World social
> system mirrors that of "1984". But certain similarity exists
> and must be kept in mind.
> 
>   Now we can consider the eternal struggle of good and evil
> in the Wizarding World from an entirely different point of
> view. Instead of a mystical ancient conflict it becomes a
> social regulator of sorts. A war becomes an integral part
> of the society.
> 
>   Conservatism of the ruling circles is easily explained by
> this theory. Indeed, it is only logical that conservatives
> rule the community. Society that has chaos at it's roots
> will always try to get as much order as possible.

Having worked with spinal cord injury/head injury patients, I know a 
little about the "high- risk taker " personalities. They are usually 
of lower socioeconomic status, male,late teens/early twenties,have 
poor impulse control, and have average to below average IQ. As a 
general rule, they do not think ahead as to the "cause and effect" of 
their actions. I would say that this personality type evolved in the 
wizarding world because of the ability to magically fix broken bones 
and other ailments that we can not with ordinary muggle medicine, and 
not as a sign of "wizard toughness" . I would also like to note that 
as Hermione said in PS, "wizards are not known for logic". Therefore 
you are probably correct in your assumption that war is an integral 
part of wizarding society. War also seems to be an integral part of 
our society/muggle, so how do you explain that?
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>       WIZARDING GENETICS
> 
>
> 
>     Genetic Theory
> 
>   We make an initial assumption that magical talent is
> controlled by some gene or set of genes. In other words, we
> assume that wizards do have no differences from muggles but
> in their genetic code.
> 
>   So far, so good. What genes, then?

Same question could be asked for other talents such as art and music, 
so far, no specific gene or combination of genes for inheritance have 
been identified for particular "talents". 
> 
>   First of all, we can reasonably assume that Wizarding Gene
> (called WG in the text) is the dominant. This conclusion
> springs immediately from the statistics of wizard-muggle
> marriages: so far no wizard born from a muggle and a wizard
> has reported to have non-magical brothers and sisters.

This is true, it would indicate that it is a dominant gene, such as 
the gene for brown eyes. But, when one parent with brown eyes and the 
other parent with blue eyes have 4 children, 3 out of the 4 will have 
brown eyes (if the brown eyed parent had a blue eyed parent and a 
brown eyed parent). There is a 25% chance of having a blue eyed 
child, so I would say that there is a 25% chance of having a non-
magical child. If the  child came from a brown eyed parent that had 
both brown eyed parents, then all children would be brown eyed 
regardless of the fact that the other parent had blue eyes. Therefore 
we can not say all muggle/wizard parents with wizard children would 
always have wizard children. If the wizard parent had muggle parents, 
he might produce a muggle child if mated with a muggle. This would 
mean that both muggle parents must carry a magic gene, that is 
unexpressed or recessive, to produce a wizard child. Therefore the 
presense of a magic gene allele does not necessarily gaurantee magic 
abilty as both parents or one parent would have to have a recessive 
magic gene, and your theory is that the magic gene is a dominant gene.

muggle gene=O magic gene =M

       Muggle parent (recessive)  Muggle parent( no magic allele)
            MO                      OO
            4 children = MO, OO, OO, OO ( one child with magic trait
             3 children with no trait. which means a 25% chance 
             having a child with magic trait, 75% chance of muggle kid
             in pregnancy)
       Muggle parent (recessive)   Muggle parent (recessive)
            MO                        MO
            4 children= MM,MO,MO, OO ( 1 child magic, 2 children
            with magic trait, 1 child with no trait.Translation-
            25% chance of a magic child, 50% chance of child
            with magic trait, and 25% chance of having a muggle
            child) 

It is possible for the Creavy's to produce 2 magical kids if both 
children inherited the MM chromosome. These are just examples of the 
ratios, and the 4 possible gene combinations are easier to show in 
the example of 4 kids.
             
> 
>   Second, magical talent is controlled not by a single pair
> of chromosomes (like gender), but by a set of them. This
> conclusion we draw from the facts that: a) wizards sometimes
> appear in completely non-magical families, and b) single
> dominant gene would manifest itself in one of the parents at
> least.

Not true . Your theory is that the magic gene is dominant. In order 
to have a wizard with muggle parents, the magic gene would have to be 
recessive, as the presence of the magic trait in the parents does not 
give them magic ability, therefore is recessive. I think what you 
might be alluding to is a "carrier gene" like that for color 
blindness.  
> 
>   Also we must remember about Creavey Case. In a non-magical
> family both children were born with magical talent. We can
> reasonably assume that both Creavey parents have parts of
> the magical genes set heterotyped (doubled). From this we
> can also expect most of Creavey children to posess magical
> talent. If this conclusion will be supported by long-term
> research, this will become a significant proof of the
> theory.

See gene demonstration above with explaination of how two magic 
children were produced from two recessive parents. 
> 
>   Another conclusion is that if some muggle family has a
> wizarding child, we can expect them to have partial magical
> parentage themselves, if often lost in the ages.

As stated above, both muggle parents must have the magic gene trait, 
unexpressed, in order to produce magical children if you are 
operating on the assumption that the magic gene is dominant. I think 
you contradicted yourself here based on what you said in the previous 
paragraph.Its understandable, genetics is like crocheting, it can get 
knotty. 
> 
>   About rarity of squibs.
> 
>   So far we know that Wizarding World experiences a large
> amount of muggle-blood injections. This probably has some
> connection with the fact that magican genetic patterns have
> certain influence on either reproduction abilities or
> behavioral patterns (more probably former). Hence we can
> assume a relatively large percent of muggle genes in the
> Wizarding World genetic pool. Even with dominant magical
> genes we should expect a relatively large percent of squibs.
> But this doesn't seem to be the case.

We don't know this for sure, as it seems that most squibs leave the 
wizarding community i.e. the weasley cousin who is an accountant. The 
only squib we see at Hogwarts is Flinch. So I think it is safe to say 
that we really don't know the percentage of the squib population, 
unless I missed something in canon. Feel free to set me straight on 
this. 
> 
>   This can only happen if whole genetic pattern is not
> required for a child to be magically talented. That is, even
> a part of magical genes is enough. Whether this means that
> the child is less talented or powerful or it's not the case
> should be researched further.
> 
If the magic gene is dominant, as you assume,in your theory, then 
what you say about needing only one parent with a recessive magic 
gene to produce a magic child does not hold water with the rest of 
genetic examples I provided, or with the ratios of how squibs and 
magic children could possibly be produced according to your proposed 
theory. 

  >>>> Hoping like hell I remembered all my genetic theory correctly 
that I learned in midwifery school<<<<<
>     Chaos Theory
> 
>   This theory assumes that magical talent has little to none
> connection with the genetics. Instead, human brain patterns
> are considered to be the source of magic.
> 
>   Initial assumption is that human brain is the accumulator
> of Chaos/Order energy. Concentration of extremely large
> amount of information disrupts the information structure of
> the Universe, and this fact can result in non-mundane
> effects - the so-called "spells". Modern science does not
> reject such opportunity entirely, and this has already been
> covered in lots of science-fiction books.
> 
I hate to bust your bubble on this one, but in psych nursing , the 
research suggests that brain structure, which is inherited, 
determines brain wave activity, thus it is inherited. In the last 15-
20 years, they have come up with the genetic theory of mental 
illness, as sociopaths and schizophrenics have abnormal brain wave 
responses to the external world. upon examination of their brain 
structure through cat scan , mri, along with eeg's, they found 
distinct differences between normal brains and the brain structure of 
the two types of mental illness i just mentioned, and the brain wave 
activity in response to incoming information from the external 
world.  
>  
   Inheritance of magical powers is tied to genetics, of
> course. Similarity of brain centers becomes however
> something more like a phenotype similarity (a child often
> looks similar to one or both of parents), and this can
> happen even to non-magical parents, in this case appropriate
> brain pattern is created randomly.

There is always a chance for a fluke mutation of any kind whether in 
structure of the brain that would create the magic ability or whether 
the magic allele was a fluke mutation. in and of itself. 
> 
>   This means that: a) muggle parents that have a magical
> talented child may have no magical blood in their veins, and
> b) that squibs are muggles by definition.

Well there you go!

Jo Ellen
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>   So? Any more ideas? :)
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> Alexander Lomski,
> (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed),
> who thinks boa-constrictor will return in later books, to be
> a husband for Nagini and draw her to the Good side... :)
> 
>     One must be a complete paranoic to search for the
>     hedgehog at the top of a fir tree.
>         Pavel Shumilov.




From inviziblegirl at hotmail.com  Sun Feb  3 17:58:58 2002
From: inviziblegirl at hotmail.com (Amber ?)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 12:58:58 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] About Ron again
Message-ID: <F158H67yRLVbNDN4Cxp00008b3b@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34578


>From: "meglet2" <mercia at ireland.com>
>
>Thanks to everyone who replied. Some very interesting points but I'm
>still a bit worried. The betrayal by the friend who is closer than a
>brother (as Ron is for Harry) is particularly tragic and was thought
>to be the case with James and Sirius. Since we now know that to be
>false it could be that it will be a reality for Harry and Ron. I
>still very much hope not and want Ron to have the strength of
>character to resist any temptations to evil but it would be a very
>strong theme.

I don't think Ron would be swayed by any temptations by Voldemort. People 
think that he could be gotten through his embarassment of poverty, which I 
find ridiculous. Yes, Ron hates being poor and complains about it. However, 
I see it as merely complaining. We all complain about things that we dislike 
or find uncomfortable. If faced with the choice between Harry and "riches", 
I think Ron would laugh his head off and choose Harry without a thought.

His jealousy is another thing and more dicey. Jealousy is a tough emotion, 
one that is horribly destructive. Especially when it's directed at friends. 
I do think that his upbringing, however, would prevail. People sniff at the 
statement "They can't turn bad, they're a Weasley" but I do think it has 
merit. How one is brought up has a tremendous influence in their life. Ron 
has been brought up his entire life to believe that Voldemort is "bad" and 
the Light Side is "good". I have a hard time seeing him abandoning his 
upbringing just for the sake of a bit of fame. But many people disagree with 
me on that point.

So. I don't see Ron voluntarily betraying Harry or Dumbledore's side. I do 
see him as the most susceptible of the Trio for being tricked into betraying 
Dumbledore's side, due to his rash temper. He could easily be provoked into 
revealing information hastily, as Draco has provoked him consistently 
throughout the books. But it WOULD have to be a trick and when Ron realizes 
his mistake, I believe he would go through hellfire to correct it.

Of course, he could be tricked in other ways, namely someone polyjuicing 
themself as someone he trusts. But everyone could be tricked that way, even 
Dumbledore as was evidenced in GOF. Damn that polyjuice! Surely there has to 
be a spell that would reveal if someone has taken some, like a drug test...

>I don't think Hermione would be susceptible in the same way because I
>think she a) has more insight into herself and others, b) has more
>strength of character and c) is too unshakeable in her loyalty to
>Harry. But I may be overly biased in her favour. I have a lot of
>fellow feeling for Hermione.

*grin* I don't think you're being biased at all. I personally see Hermione 
as one of the strongest characters in the HP-verse. The mere fact that she 
has no problems resisting peer pressure to do what she thinks is right just 
astounds me. I wish I were more like her.

Hermione does seem less susceptible due to her observance of rules (which 
she drops when absolutely needed) and relative security of self. I have a 
difficult time trying to imagine what could sway Hermione; she doesn't 
appear to lack for anything. Although, I do note, that she could have a 
burning desire for something but if she does, Harry hasn't noticed. Perhaps 
her love for knowledge could sway her but I doubt it. While she puts 
tremendous stock in learning and knowledge, her Gryffindor side saves her 
from being too obsessive about it. While she has faults, she seems 
remarkably balanced for someone her age.

Golly, I could go on and on and extoll the many virtues of Hermione Granger 
but will refrain, as most people on this list know them already!

~Amber

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

'My nerves are bad to-night. Yes, bad. Stay with me.
'Speak to me. Why do you never speak? Speak.
'What are you thinking of? What thinking? What?
'I never know what you are thinking. Think.'
- excerpts from "The Waste Land" by T.S. Eliot

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




From cindysphynx at home.com  Sun Feb  3 18:15:40 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 18:15:40 -0000
Subject: Crouch Sr and Peter (WAS Humor -- the Train Stomp )
In-Reply-To: <a3gis6+v1hi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3juoc+r4u4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34579

Elkins wrote (about Crouch Sr.):

>But all the same, it still seems
> to me that stripping your no-account, good-for-nothing, disgrace-to-
> the-family-name offspring of all personal volition, rendering him
> completely invisible, denying him all human contact, and keeping him
> locked in your kitchen is...well, that isn't exactly *mercy,* is it?

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.  He didn't exactly decline to 
switch places with his sick mother.  No, he was happy to get out of 
Azkaban (where he was reliving all of his unhappy memories) to live 
with dear old dad (where he could, uh, relive a lot of unhappy 
memories).  He traded a foul cell in prison for cushy surroundings at 
daddy's house, a comfy bed, three squares, endless talk shows on 
daytime television, and the occasional trip to the QWC.  That's not 
that bad.

Besides, Crouch Jr. should be *thanking* his dad for bailing him out 
of Azkaban.  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.  

::shakes off mental image of Crouch Sr. imploring, "I do and do and 
do for you, and this is the thanks I get?"::

Elkins again (on Peter's talent for sniveling):

> But on this topic, I've always wondered why Peter didn't take that 
> approach with Sirius in the first place.  He already knows that 
> Voldemort has mysteriously vanished, and he may even already know
> that the other DEs are starting to mutter things about him having
> betrayed their master to his doom.  So wouldn't you think that it 
> would make more sense, from a strategic standpoint, to try to get 
> back in with the winning side while the getting's good, rather than
> going into hiding for thirteen years?

I can only think of two reasons why Peter wouldn't try this.  First, 
it could simply be that he is dedicated to the Dark Lord, as Sirius 
suggests in the Shrieking Shack.  Peter was just biding his time, 
waiting for a chance to help his master, so being a rat for 12 years 
would probably provide a better vantage point than Azkaban.  Somehow, 
I doubt it. (Does anyone else think Peter transformed just now and 
then, just for a thrill, and raided the Weasley's refrigerator at 
night?  Maybe he threw wild parties at the Burrow when the Weasleys 
were on holiday.)  

Better, I think, is that Peter probably knew that Sirius wasn't going 
to buy any nonsense about the Imperius Curse, and Sirius wasn't going 
to turn Peter in to MoM, either.  (For instance, perhaps the Imperius 
Curse won't work for the secretkeeper, or perhaps Sirius knew Peter 
knows how to throw off the Imperius Curse or something).  No, Sirius 
was going to put an end to Peter once and for all, right there in 
front of a bunch of wide-eyed muggles.  I kind of respect Sirius for 
this.  Sorry, it's true.

Elkins again:

> Do you think Sirius really would have killed him right there on the
> street if he'd burst into tears and choked out some sob story about
> how the evil Death Eaters tortured him horribly, and hard as he 
tried 
> he just couldn't withstand them, and so he betrayed Lily and James, 
> and now he'll never forgive himself for being such a useless, 
> hopeless, impotent wretch, and would Sirius just kill him now, 
> please, quickly, and put him out of his guilt-racked misery?
> 

Uh, the only question in my mind would be the depth of the crater on 
the spot where Peter was standing.

No, there's no question in my mind that Sirius would have made short 
work of Peter.  The tougher question is whether Lupin would have done 
the same thing had he cornered Peter in the street.  I'm not so sure.

Elkins again (about Peter and Voldemort):

>I think 
> [Peter's] headed for empty nest syndrome ("My little Baby Who Must 
>Not Be 
> Named, all grown up, doesn't need me anymore...").  

::snerk::  Peter reminds me more of an abused spouse. Voldemort has 
told Peter that Peter is weak and incompetent so often that Peter 
believes it now.  (Apparently, Sirius was also not shy about sharing 
that assessment with Peter, too).  It's a rather sick pattern, isn't 
it?  Voldemort insults Peter, then rewards him with something (silver 
hand).  Peter hangs around for the next insult.  Spooky.

Cindy (who is learning that she is developing quite a thing for hot-
headed, cold-blooded men)




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  3 18:30:56 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 18:30:56 -0000
Subject: Ron as Sirius and Neville as Peter (was: About Ron again)
In-Reply-To: <a3jl5c+5tqg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3jvl0+m70f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34580

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "meglet2" <mercia at i...> wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who replied. Some very interesting points but 
> I'm still a bit worried. The betrayal by the friend who is closer 
> than a brother (as Ron is for Harry) is particularly tragic and 
> was thought to be the case with James and Sirius. Since we now 
> know that to be false it could be that it will be a reality for 
> Harry and Ron. I still very much hope not and want Ron to have the 
> strength of character to resist any temptations to evil but it 
> would be a very strong theme. 

I fail to see how the betrayal of Sirius never happening means that 
it is MORE likely that Ron will betray Harry.  It seems far more 
likely that the SAME thing might occur (that people will THINK that 
Ron is a traitor for a while, while he has been loyal all along) and 
the James/Sirius relationship would therefore serve as foreshadowing.

> I don't think Hermione would be susceptible in the same way 
> because I think she a) has more insight into herself and others, 
> b) has more strength of character and c) is too unshakeable in her 
> loyalty to Harry. But I may be overly biased in her favour. I have 
> a lot of fellow feeling for Hermione. 

She doesn't have as much insight into herself as she does into 
others.  (A real blind spot with Gilderoy Lockhart, don't you 
think?)  She also has shown a tendency to keep important information 
to herself (the Time Turner, Lupin being a werewolf).  Her loyalty 
is unquestionable, however, and therefore anything she does that 
inadvertantly hurts Harry, will, I believe, be just that: 
inadvertant and done with the best of intentions.  Think of the 
Firebolt incident: she had the best of intentions and her two best 
friends were hacked off at her for a while, but she did what she 
thought was right out of loyalty to Harry.  She's not afraid to risk 
alienating even the people she cares about most to do what she feels 
is right.

When Harry, Ron and Hermione are going over the lake as first years 
in the first book, they are joined by another person: Neville.  It 
seems that Neville is the best doppelganger for Pettigrew.  He's not 
considered very competant and he's at the fringes of the group.  
Perhaps his attachment to Hermione (he asked her to the ball) will  
spur him to do something traitorous (he could possibly get the 
impression she's involved with Harry or Ron whether that's correct 
or not).  A lot of folks have been rooting for Neville to tap into 
the power he "must" have inherited from his parents, but somehow I'm 
not completely convinced that would be a good thing...

--Barb
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb 





From cindysphynx at home.com  Sun Feb  3 18:42:17 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 18:42:17 -0000
Subject: Excuses, excuses (more Lupin) & a Snape Rant
In-Reply-To: <a3jtju+ftgs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3k0a9+t8ns@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34581

Pippin wrote (about Lupin):

>Personally, I am 
> finding him a much more enjoyable character now that I think of 
> him as a screw-up. 

Whaaaaaaaaaat?  Lupin, a screw-up?  Them's fightin' words! <vbg>

::tearing sound of velcro as the gloves come off::

I would match Lupin's error rate with Snape's any day.  Snape 
mastered the art of screwing things up long ago.  Here are the Top 10 
reasons Snape is a champion, Grade A, first-class, Number One screw-
up:

1.  Snape wants to tip the students that Lupin is a werewolf, but he 
can't get the point across well enough.  He is finally reduced to 
just telling the kids outright:  "Hey guys, did I ever mention that 
Lupin is a werewolf?"  Not very impressive.

2.  He picked the Forces of Evil instead of the Forces of Good by 
becoming a DE in the first place.  

3.  A ten-year old girl solved Snape's potions obstacle in about 1 
minute.

4.  Snape, a fully-qualified wizard, can't figure out the Marauder's 
Map, but Fred and George, underage students, could.

5.  Snape lets Moody intimidate him into not investigating who had 
burgled his office.  He also used a locking charm that Moody broke 
rather handily, not once, but twice.

6.  An 11-year old girl crept into Snape's office and stole more 
potions ingredients again.

7.  Snape can't prove that Harry went to Hogsmeade, when all he had 
to do was threaten to burn the map unless Harry came clean.

8.  Snape may have allowed Fudge to bring the dementor to Moody's 
office, where it promptly sucked out Crouch Jr.'s soul, making him as 
responsible or even more responsible than McGonagall.

9.  He is responsible for Peter's escape, and as a result, 
Voldemort's re-birth.  Had he listened in the Shrieking Shack, there 
would have been an additional wizard there to keep control of the 
situation.  Snape also might have Crouch Sr.'s blood on his hands for 
needlessly detaining Harry as Harry searched for Dumbledore.

10.  Experienced dueler that Snape is, he allowed three underage 
wizards to disarm him.  This occurred because Snape didn't have the 
good sense to disarm the kids right away (note that Lupin did disarm 
the students when he arrived in the Shack).    

Ah well, you know, nobody's perfect.  ::smiles sweetly::

Pippin again:

>Now I am looking forward to the day when Sirius, who 
> has begun to grow up, bless him, grabs both Snape and Lupin 
> by the scruffs of their necks and bangs their heads together.
> 

Yes, that will be a wonderful day, won't it?  :-)

Cindy (pretty sure Sirius isn't also a screw-up, although he did have 
a rather off day when the Potters were attacked)




From lav at tut.by  Sun Feb  3 18:34:19 2002
From: lav at tut.by (Alexander)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 20:34:19 +0200
Subject: What Did Snape Do In GoF?
Message-ID: <9535943588.20020203203419@tut.by>

No: HPFGUIDX 34582

  Greetings!

  While re-reading PS/SS today, a thought has crossed my
mind. It is said in "Goblet of Fire", that Snape has done
smth for Dumbledore's case, possibly contacted Death Eaters
or else. But how could he do it?
  Voldemort knows *for sure* what side Snape is on. Remember
in PS/SS - Snape opposes Quirrell _directly_ and _openly_.
So there's no chance Voldemort can be left uninformed about
Snape. I would even suppose that Severus is #3 or #4 in VSL
(Voldemort's Slaying List).
  So the question is: what did Snape do? He couldn't contact
DE's - most likely they all already know how good Severus
is. Spy? No chance. It must be something not connected to
Death Eaters and Voldemort directly. Possibly finding
allies? Haven't the slightest idea.

Sincerely yours,
Alexander Lomski,
(Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed),
always happy to throw weird ideas into the community.





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  3 18:40:22 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 18:40:22 -0000
Subject: Hogwerts Classes -  No math or history?
Message-ID: <a3k06m+pklu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34583

My niece wants to go to Hogwart's and said "Npw I don't have to take 
math class anymore." I laughed and then reread class descriptions and 
found notoriously absent the muggle basics of math, english, history, 
etc.

I wondered if 'Muggle Studies' covered this, but after reading the 
Muggle studies essay in the Harry potter lexicon find them absent 
(Muggle Studies appear to be elective anyway.)

I assume that writing is included in the general classes (with 3-
parchment essays regularly being assigned)but are we to assume that 
magicians couldn't do simple math or fail simple social studies?

Are these classes not taught in English secondary schools? I wouldn't 
think highly of all the young wizards trying to make a living. I 
considered Hogwarts, Beauxbatons, and Durmstrang the best of the 
best, but you have to wonder.

"uncmark" 




From Ali at zymurgy.org  Sun Feb  3 19:02:36 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 19:02:36 -0000
Subject: O.W.L.s and N.E.W.T.s
In-Reply-To: <a3hmbj+2amd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3k1gc+36qp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34584

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrwilkens" <wilke013 at g...> wrote:
> As an American (well out of high school!) I was curious if anyone 
familiar with education in Britain could 
> tell me if there are anything similar to these delightfully named 
tests taken by Hogwarts students in the 
> British system?  In other words, standarized tests taken around age 
15 as well as in the last school 
> year?  
> 
> Also what are the twelve possible O.W.L.s one can achieve?  (I'm 
assuming twelve is maximum based on 
> quotes relating to Percy and Barty Crouch, etal.)  Are passing 
these tests necessary to graduation and if 
> so, does passing at least one O.W.L. count?
> 
> JRW (who is terribly obsessive-compulsive about tests and likes to 
know exactly where she stands on 
> them!)




From porphyria at mindspring.com  Sun Feb  3 22:44:02 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 14:44:02 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] In defense of Hermione and Neville (Ron as Sirius and Neville as Peter)
In-Reply-To: <a3jvl0+m70f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <854D5016-18F7-11D6-8AC4-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34586

On Sunday, February 3, 2002, at 10:30 AM, blpurdom wrote:

> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "meglet2" <mercia at i...> wrote:
> > I don't think Hermione would be susceptible in the same way
> > because I think she a) has more insight into herself and others,
> > b) has more strength of character and c) is too unshakeable in her
> > loyalty to Harry. But I may be overly biased in her favour. I have
> > a lot of fellow feeling for Hermione.
>
> She doesn't have as much insight into herself as she does into
> others.? (A real blind spot with Gilderoy Lockhart, don't you
> think?)? She also has shown a tendency to keep important information
> to herself (the Time Turner, Lupin being a werewolf).?

I just needed to jump to Hermione's defense here. :-) Concerning 
Lockhart, she was, after all, only 12 at the time and furthermore nearly 
every witch in the Potterverse seemed equally captivated by him. It was 
more of an epidemic of infatuation which she contracted, rather than a 
character flaw on her part. Those of us who never had a silly crush when 
we were 12 should cast the first stone...

As to Hermione's keeping secrets, I've always seen this as one of the 
more extraordinary signs of her strength of character. Given the amount 
of damage one can do with a time-turner, and the extent to which it is 
only allowed within strict Ministry control, one can hardly blame her 
for keeping it secret. It would only tempt the boys and everyone else to 
use it for less-than-noble purposes if they knew about it, and Hermione 
doesn't want to be responsible for its misuse. Plus, she swore to Prof. 
McGonagall that she wouldn't tell anyone about it, so she's simply 
honoring a previous promise, one which she no doubt sees the wisdom in.

As to her keeping Lupin's secret, this is probably more interesting and 
debatable. Perhaps Hermione figures that the rest of the faculty, or at 
the very least Dumbledore, must know that Lupin is a werewolf. If they 
know, then it must be *OK* to some extent, and she doesn't want to 
overstep her authority in the matter by exposing him. Furthermore, we 
know that Hermione tends to have standards of judging others more like a 
liberal muggle than a pure-blood wizard. Ron may instinctively distrust 
werewolves, but Hermione might feel that a werewolf is innocent until 
proven guilty of something, therefore she takes it upon herself to 
protect him from wizard prejudice. Again, its a matter of honoring 
someone else's secret.


> When Harry, Ron and Hermione are going over the lake as first years
> in the first book, they are joined by another person: Neville.? It
> seems that Neville is the best doppelganger for Pettigrew.? He's not
> considered very competant and he's at the fringes of the group.?
> Perhaps his attachment to Hermione (he asked her to the ball) will?
> spur him to do something traitorous (he could possibly get the
> impression she's involved with Harry or Ron whether that's correct
> or not).? A lot of folks have been rooting for Neville to tap into
> the power he "must" have inherited from his parents, but somehow I'm
> not completely convinced that would be a good thing...


I'm not sure if JKR would have the heart to twist Neville's character 
like that. We've already seen that he can be brave and do the right 
thing (even if it gets him beaten up or body-bound), so he's got a lot 
of nobility in him. Plus, so far he doesn't seem to be particularly 
jealous of either Harry or Ron, and unlike Pettigrew he doesn't seems to 
cling to anyone for protection or reflected popularity. He shows no sign 
of having a temper or a vindictive streak, or any calculation at all. 
Pettigrew is elsewhere compared to Colin Creevey, but I don't buy that 
either, for essentially the same reasons; Colin is too innocent and 
well-meaning. To have either character turn traitor would involve adding 
heretofore unnoticed qualities to their personalities. Well, OK, I'd be 
heartbroken to think either of these kids would go bad. But I'm not 
crazy about predicting future plot developments from past occurrences. 
There is no character who is exactly like someone else from the previous 
generation, and I don't think JKR would recycle a plot wholesale.

Of course I think Neville will kick butt when he _finds himself_, but 
I'm sure it will be bad-guy butt.

~~Porphyria


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




From gwynyth at drizzle.com  Sun Feb  3 19:53:48 2002
From: gwynyth at drizzle.com (Jenett)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 13:53:48 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwerts Classes -  No math or history?
In-Reply-To: <a3k06m+pklu@eGroups.com>
References: <a3k06m+pklu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a05100300b8833ddddc77@[209.98.58.220]>

No: HPFGUIDX 34587

At 6:40 PM +0000 2/3/02, uncmark wrote:
>Are these classes not taught in English secondary schools? I wouldn't
>think highly of all the young wizards trying to make a living. I
>considered Hogwarts, Beauxbatons, and Durmstrang the best of the
>best, but you have to wonder.

This question has come up here several times while I've been reading 
(since November) but I've got another thought, triggered by someone 
commenting that a lot of Rowling's descriptions of the school seem to 
be old-fashioned *anyway*.

Both my parents were educated in British educational systems (both of 
them at good day schools for their high school years) - my father was 
born in 31, and my mother in 36, so they were in the upper years of 
primary school in the fourties and early 50s.

At that time, both their schools forced a fairly strong 
specialisation - both of them tested out very bright on their 11+ 
exams (used to determine what kind of high school they went to), and 
in my father's case, he was given really no choice about what he was 
going to study. He was bright enough to learn Greek and Latin and 
focus on Classics, and so that's what he was going to do. (My mother 
had a few more options, for various reasons, but she focused on 
English, History, and modern languages.) Once they specialised, 
though, that was it - if you did Classics, you might get a bit of 
French and English literature and history for a few years, but you 
wouldn't go near classes in math and science.

(It's also my understanding that Germany still does this to a large 
extent, though the break is slightly later in time, and it depends on 
which kind of high school you go to.)

Anyway, my parents had picked up a fair bit of the basics by the time 
I came along (I have two much older siblings), but neither of them 
was ever even particularly able to help with things like pre-algebra 
or geometry without them learning the subject before I needed help 
with it (these are courses I took at the ages of 12 and 13)

And by the time I was at the high school level, they *really* 
couldn't help with science and math questions. They could help me 
with non-information specific questions (like helping me with the 
basics of doing research), and they were very proactive about helping 
me find help if I needed it - but they couldn't do it themselves. It 
wasn't that they'd learned it and forgot it, or that information had 
changed - it's that they'd never learned it in school at all.

And.. you know what? Other than what my father needed to learn for 
his own hobby (model railroads, which involve some engineering stuff, 
like how tight the curve ratio of a train track curve can be before 
you have trains starting to derail), they really never needed that 
information.

They could certainly do daily math problems (dealing with finances, 
taxes, etc.) but they couldn't do things like algebra or trig or 
calculus. I know *I* learned all the basic math needed to do those 
things before I was 11 - my elementary school actually made a point 
of us applying what we learned to daily situations (but even then, 
it's a pretty simple thing to pick up, and I think Hogwarts would 
cover most of it tangentially anyway, what with people needing to buy 
potion supplies and do measurements). They were also perfectly 
capable of reading articles about new developments, as well, if they 
were written in non-technical terms, or talking about theory as 
opposed to scientific proofs.

That closed off some potential avenues of employment for my parents - 
but they didn't particularly mind. I *did* have those potential 
avenues much more open to me (I went to schools which required me to 
go through at least pre-calculus and trigonometry, and which were 
very enthusiastic about people doing more than that.) and I chose to 
pursue areas of study where that wasn't important to me.

I'm not saying that upper-level math is *bad*, by any means (I have a 
great deal of respect for the people I know who have upper level 
training in it.) Just that I think it's also possible to be an 
educated and thoughtful person without it, and not have it have a 
huge effect on your life, unless you want to go into a field where 
it's important.

All of this bringing me to: there doesn't seem to be a lot of 
positions which *require* upper level math or science in the 
wizarding world. No engineers, doctors qua doctors; etc. There are 
some fields that come close - potions, for example, or the kind of 
training Madame Pomfrey had or the technical process that goes into 
making flying carpets or brooms, perhaps - but it seems like any of 
those could easily be covered by apprenticeships or a post-school 
training period, rather than a long progression of subject-specific 
courses. They all seem to require magical training far more than 
specific mathematical training, and there seem to be relative few 
positions like this *anyway*. (Unlike the modern world, where it's a 
much bigger issue.)

It therefore makes sense to me that the main courses that are offered 
are pretty basic to the understanding of the society or basic skills 
(Charms, Potions, DADA, etc.) or electives. It might be that there's 
an elective available later that deals with more practical 
applications, but even if there weren't, it'd be pretty simple to 
deal with in an apprenticeship structure.

Sure, some of them aren't taught as well as they might be (History 
springs to mind, more than anything) but I think the content is still 
reaasonably important (especially with a somewhat sizeable population 
of either people whose parents are Muggles, or people like Draco, 
who've probably been told a somewhat skewed version of at least 
recent history at home).


-Jenett
-- 
----- gwynyth at drizzle.com ******* gleewood at gleewood.org ------
"My friend, there is a fine line between coincidence and fate"
                 Ardeth Bay - _The Mummy Returns_
-------------------- http://gleewood.org/ --------------------



From porphyria at mindspring.com  Sun Feb  3 23:07:38 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 15:07:38 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Excuses, excuses (more Lupin)
In-Reply-To: <a3jtju+ftgs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <D10BA714-18FA-11D6-8AC4-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34588


On Sunday, February 3, 2002, at 09:56 AM, pippin_999 wrote:

> I see people are having fun thinking up reasons why Lupin
> shouldn't be held responsible for his mistakes. Personally, I am
> finding him a much more enjoyable character now that I think of
> him as a screw-up. I really wasn't looking forward to his return
> before.? He was a bit of a yawn to tell you the truth, noble
> werewolf undone by prejudice and hard luck, too good to be true,?
> ho-hum.

I've been musing over Lupin's character for a little while and thought 
this was as good a place as any to insert my comments. Lupin is one of 
my favorite characters, and the thing I like about the way he's depicted 
is that his flaws seem to be of a piece with his sympathetic qualities.

By this I mean, yes he is a werewolf undone by prejudice and hard luck, 
but this very prejudice and hard luck make him into a less-than-perfect 
character. Specifically, he's internalized the sense of himself as being 
guilty and untrustworthy. He's so used to keeping important things about 
himself secret, that he fails to distinguish which secrets need to be 
exposed and which concealed. To me, the most questionable actions of his 
are when he fails to mention to Dumbledore that Sirius is an animagus 
and that there are secret ways into the castle which could bypass the 
dementors. It's really inconceivable that he should sit on this 
information, and he *does* feel guilty about not telling anyone. But to 
Lupin feeling guilty is standard operating procedure, and it seems like 
he is more inclined to wallow in guilt than to come clean to Dumbledore. 
This is bad, but it's a symptom of the way that he's had to live with a 
'guilty secret' since early childhood. It also explains why he needs to 
keep his emotions under wraps -- he's not sure that exposing too much 
about himself is ever a good idea.

OTOH he is noble about taking responsibility for things that aren't 
exactly his fault, such as when he concedes to Harry at the end of PoA 
that he could have bitten someone the night before and thus maybe 
shouldn't be teaching. Again, since being a werewolf was never his fault 
to begin with, I think he's lost track of what really is his 
responsibility and what isn't; so he tends to err on the side of overall 
guilt and secrecy. I think it's very poignant, however worrisome.


>  Now I am looking forward to the day when Sirius, who
> has begun to grow up, bless him, grabs both Snape and Lupin
> by the scruffs of their necks and bangs their heads together.

I'm actually hoping Lupin will do this to Sirius and Snape; at least 
Lupin recognizes the need to get along with everyone, which appears to 
be past both Sirius's and Snape's grasp at this point. :-)

~~Porphyria


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




From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com  Sun Feb  3 20:33:02 2002
From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 15:33:02 EST
Subject: Does Voldemort know which side Snape is on? WAS: What Did Snape Do In GoF?
Message-ID: <2f.21cb9b4c.298ef87e@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34589

In a message dated 2/3/2002 1:45:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, lav at tut.by 
writes:


>   Voldemort knows *for sure* what side Snape is on. Remember
> in PS/SS - Snape opposes Quirrell _directly_ and _openly_.
> So there's no chance Voldemort can be left uninformed about
> Snape. 

Actually, Snape may still have a chance!  It's true Snape opposes Quirrell 
but he only opposes him going after the Stone. He probably had no idea that 
Voldemort was under Quirrell's turban and might've thought Quirrell was 
trying to get it for himself. 

~Cassie~ 


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




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Sun Feb  3 19:45:08 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 11:45:08 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] About Ron again
In-Reply-To: <a3jl5c+5tqg@eGroups.com>
References: <a3jl5c+5tqg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <170353970458.20020203114508@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34590



Hi,

Sunday, February 03, 2002, 7:31:56 AM, meglet2 wrote:

> I also saw the documentary on JKR and I'm not sure 
> basing a character on your best friend necessarily prevents any 
> writer from doing something nasty with that character if he or she 
> thinks it necessary for the story.

I read an interview with her, where she seemed a bit annoyed
that a lot of kids were asking her not to kill Ron, but nobody
asked about Hermione.

I wonder if these feelings are going to play somehow into
the future books.

For some reason I never thought Hermione was in danger of
being destined for death, but after reading lots of opinions
on different forums, I'm very worried about Ron.

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





From lav at tut.by  Sun Feb  3 19:59:59 2002
From: lav at tut.by (Alexander)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 21:59:59 +0200
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Potterverse: Social Psychology - Wizarding Genetics
In-Reply-To: <a3jtln+i6ci@eGroups.com>
References: <a3jtln+i6ci@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <14341083981.20020203215959@tut.by>

No: HPFGUIDX 34591

  Greetings!

> jrober4211 wrote to us:

j> Having worked with spinal cord injury/head injury
j> patients, I know a little about the "high- risk taker "
j> personalities. They are usually of lower socioeconomic
j> status, male,late teens/early twenties,have poor impulse
j> control, and have average to below average IQ.

  Well, I have slightly different views on this one. Having
worked with military history I can name quite a lot of
people who were risk takers - cold-blooded, measured,
evaluated risk-takers. And they were damn smart, or highest
socioeconomic status and often in late 40'ies or 50'ies.
  Isiroku Yamamoto is the prime example of the species. For
those who don't know who he is, I'll remind: this is the guy
who planned and organized the Pearl-Harbour operation.

  But I agree with you on this one. Wizards seem to take
risks not because they calculate the results, but because
they are used "not to care". Lack of responsibility, or
cautioness, or most likely both.

j> Therefore you are probably correct in your assumption
j> that war is an integral part of wizarding society. War
j> also seems to be an integral part of our society/muggle,
j> so how do you explain that?

  Perhaps I spoke myself wrongly. Though the war is indeed
an integral part of muggle society, *permanent* war usually
is not. Talking about Wizarding World, I was talking about
"Cold Hot War" like the one described in "1984" - military
actions are performed constantly with variable degree of
success and with no positive result in the future (perhaps
the best explanation is given by Dumbledore in PS/SS - he
says that *maybe*, if Voldemort will be opposed again and
again, he will not be able to recover again - but he does
not even think that Voldemort can be finally defeated).
  Thus my thesis is as follows: Wizarding society is in
constant search of an inner enemy. This enemy is always
labelled "Evil" (no matter who is at power). In short,
Wizarding World is an anarchic society with certain elements
of totalitarian social system (inner enemy and common
paranoia about it).
  Though rare, there are examples of muggle societies with
similar "permanent war sindrome". Afghanistan before 11.09.
Georgia and Abhasia (ex-USSR republics in constant war since
USSR disintegration). Ex-Yugoslavia until now. Chechnya.

j> Same question could be asked for other talents such as
j> art and music, so far, no specific gene or combination of
j> genes for inheritance have been identified for particular
j> "talents".

  Yes, true, but "musician dinasties" existed and exist
until now - musical talent is often inherited. Can say
nothing for art, though my friend is an artist, and his
father is an artist, and AFAIK his grandpa was also an
artist. Wow.

>>   Second, magical talent is controlled not by a single pair
>> of chromosomes (like gender), but by a set of them. This
>> conclusion we draw from the facts that: a) wizards sometimes
>> appear in completely non-magical families, and b) single
>> dominant gene would manifest itself in one of the parents at
>> least.

j> Not true . Your theory is that the magic gene is
j> dominant. In order to have a wizard with muggle parents,
j> the magic gene would have to be recessive, as the
j> presence of the magic trait in the parents does not give
j> them magic ability, therefore is recessive. I think what
j> you might be alluding to is a "carrier gene" like that
j> for color blindness.

  Here you misunderstood me. I meant a *set* of dominant
genes, appearance of magical talent being the result of
*whole* set or certain sub-set appearing in the child
chromosome.

  Here we come:

1st Parent: MM, OO
2nd Parent: OO, MM
  (none of the Parents has *both* dominant magical genes, so
   no magical talent manifests in either of them)

Children (all): MO, MO
  (both genes have dominant alleles, so *all* children have
   magical talent: The Creavey Case).

  Of course I don't mean this is exactly the case with
genetic structure. But it seems pretty probable to me that
magical talent is controlled by *more* that just one
chromosome. Different genes being responsible for:
  a) ability to absorb magical energy
  b) ability to shape magical energy
  c) ability to focus magical energy
  d) etc, etc... many possibilities exist.

j> We don't know this for sure, as it seems that most squibs
j> leave the wizarding community i.e. the weasley cousin who
j> is an accountant. The only squib we see at Hogwarts is
j> Flinch. So I think it is safe to say that we really don't
j> know the percentage of the squib population, unless I
j> missed something in canon. Feel free to set me straight
j> on this.

  I can't present any evidence, it's just the general
impression that squibs are quite a rarity. See Ron's
reaction when he knows Filch is a squib. Also the fact that
"squib" acts like a weak/moderate insult - if squibs were a
considerable percent of population I don't think anybody
would consider that an insult - rather a diasgnosis. But I'm
not hard on this one.

j> >>>> Hoping like hell I remembered all my genetic theory
j> correctly that I learned in midwifery school<<<<<

  IMHO you remember it correctly. I myself was studying
genetics some 9-10 years ago, but since then I had refreshed
my knowledge due to my studies in genetic algorithms...
  But what I remember for sure is that it's quite common for
some phenotype feature to be controlled by more than one
chromosome. Hair colour, for example.

j> I hate to bust your bubble on this one, but in psych
j> nursing , the research suggests that brain structure,
j> which is inherited, determines brain wave activity, thus
j> it is inherited. In the last 15- 20 years, they have come
j> up with the genetic theory of mental illness, as
j> sociopaths and schizophrenics have abnormal brain wave
j> responses to the external world. upon examination of
j> their brain structure through cat scan , mri, along with
j> eeg's, they found distinct differences between normal
j> brains and the brain structure of the two types of mental
j> illness i just mentioned, and the brain wave activity in
j> response to incoming information from the external world.

  Yep, thanks, will keep in mind. Which returns us to our
first theory.
  Comparing wizards with "sociopaths and schizophrenics" is
perhaps the most soothing thing for me! :)

j> Jo Ellen

Sincerely yours,
Alexander Lomski,
(Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed),
who is extremely excited to get the first reply to his
"theories"...

>--- Eloise wrote: -----------------------------------------

>> One must be a complete paranoic to search for the
>> hedgehog at the top of a fir tree.
>>     Pavel Shumilov.

> Haven't seen one yet, but I'm still looking!

H.P.F.G.U. (Hedgehogs Prefer Firs - Great and Useful)





From oppen at cnsinternet.com  Sun Feb  3 21:25:26 2002
From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 15:25:26 -0600
Subject: Could the twins turn bad?
Message-ID: <003901c1acf9$4db92ce0$e0c71bce@hppav>

No: HPFGUIDX 34592

Somebody above (forgive me for not remembering who; I get this list as a
digest) said that she didn't like the Weasley twins, Gred-and-Forge.  She
cited things like their hexing the Slyths at the end of GoF (and then
physically abusing them when they were helpless to defend themselves) and
other things they've done, like hissing Malcolm Baddock for being sorted
into Slytherin.

It occurs to me that they _might_ be prime candidates for the role of Next
Evil Overlord.  I've never been fond of practical jokers---remember,
Batman's _worst_ and most frequent enemy is called the Joker.  Sure, they're
popular and well-liked _now,_ but apparently so was Tom (Lord Voldemort)
Riddle when _he_ was at Hogwarts.

A lot of the stuff they've pulled really isn't very funny when you think
about it---feeding somebody Ton-Tongue Toffees or Canary Creams _without_
making clear what's about to happen could go horribly wrong.  They're
awfully unpleasant to their brother Percy---hexing his "Head Boy" badge to
read "Bighead Boy," sending him dragon dung at his office, and hiding his
Prefect's badge---and this is just the stuff we _know_ about.  Who knows
what stuff they get up to that we don't know about?  Just being identical
twins offers endless opportunities---as in "Okay, one of us hexed you, and
you've had us dragged in to see Professor McGonagall.  _Which one of us
actually did it?_  There was another Weasley twin out on the Quidditch field
at the time, and we've got a hundred witnesses to that, so which of us do
you say did it?"

They're also anxious to get ahead, and not too worried about how---if my dad
had caught me gambling at the age they were at at the QWC, he'd have gone up
like Mount Krakatoa.  Once they're out of Hogwarts and not under the
parental thumbs, they could just as easily turn evil---maybe using a "joke
shop" as a cover for selling Dark Arts-related material and brewing up new
evil hexes to do things like rob wizard banks.

If I were around them, although I'd probably be amused by a lot of their
antics, I'd keep a sharp eye on them---and NEVER accept food or objects from
them!  I'm not saying that they _will_ turn evil---I'm just saying that the
possibility is definitely there...and if that happens in a later book (Hurry
UP, Ms. Rowling!) we'll be looking back on this list, saying "How could we
have missed all those clues?" just as we do about Quirrel and
Crouch-as-Moody.

--Eric, who likes the twins but wouldn't trust them much.




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  3 21:39:27 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 21:39:27 -0000
Subject: Only 3 magic schools?
Message-ID: <a3kamf+s5un@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34593

In Goblet of Fire, Harry was surprised that he had never considered 
how many wizards there were worldwide. There were over 100,000 at the 
Quidditch World cup Final and those tickets were 
considered 'impossible to get. I think we could reasonably estimate 
the worldwidw wizard population at 1 million (which would place 1 
wizard in every 5000 to 6000 births)

Are we further to guess from the Triwizard Tournament that there are 
only 3 secondary schools worldwide? They represent the UK. France, 
and the Eastern European groups, but conspicuously missing are 
Americans, Orientals, Africans, or Latinos. Do these populations have 
no magical schools?

I think that Hogwarts, Durmstrang, and Beauxbaton might be the three 
oldest only, much like the US 'ivy league'. It was mentioned that the 
Tournament hadn't been held in centuries. There are probably schools 
in other regions, maybe we'll see them in later books. 

Thoughts on the subject?

Uncmark





From porphyria at mindspring.com  Mon Feb  4 00:42:18 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 16:42:18 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Defending a Snape Rant
In-Reply-To: <a3k0a9+t8ns@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <0AF3CDB3-1908-11D6-8AC4-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34594

Since I'm defending everyone today, it's Snape's turn...

On Sunday, February 3, 2002, at 10:42 AM, cindysphynx wrote:
> I would match Lupin's error rate with Snape's any day.? Snape
> mastered the art of screwing things up long ago.? Here are the Top 10
> reasons Snape is a champion, Grade A, first-class, Number One screw-
> up:
>
> 1.? Snape wants to tip the students that Lupin is a werewolf, but he
> can't get the point across well enough.? He is finally reduced to
> just telling the kids outright:? "Hey guys, did I ever mention that
> Lupin is a werewolf?"? Not very impressive.

This isn't really a screw-up. I always admired Snape's cunning in his 
assignment of the werewolf essay. He's in sort of a bind halfway through 
PoA; he's promised Dumbledore he won't tell anyone about Lupin, but he 
is convinced that Lupin is untrustworthy and perhaps he feels the 
students ought to at least have the pertinent information about 
werewolves in general (and Lupin in particular) on hand. Sneaky and 
slimy to assign an essay, yes, but smart. It wasn't his fault if 
Hermione was the only student smart enough to take a tip.

I don't think his blurting out the truth about Lupin at the end of the 
book is an extension of the same action as assigning the essay. Halfway 
through the book Snape only suspects Lupin's guilt; at the end of the 
book he is sure of it -- mistaken, but sure. When he finally finds Lupin 
in the shack with Sirius he states "I've told the Headmaster again and 
again that you've been helping your old friend Black into the castle, 
Lupin, and here's the proof." He never witnesses anything to make him 
change his mind. So IMHO he justifies spilling the beans this way, and 
he no longer needs to make the ethical trade-off of dropping hints. He 
just wants to make the truth known, he's not trying to be clever, and so 
blurting it out has a different motive than assigning the essay.

> 2.? He picked the Forces of Evil instead of the Forces of Good by
> becoming a DE in the first place.?

Would you call this a screw-up? Tragic mistake, yes, but given what we 
know about his early childhood (precocious familiarity with curses) he 
might have come from a family of DE's who considered it very logical and 
appropriate for him to join up with them. Not everyone can be born good 
like James. :-P

> 3.? A ten-year old girl solved Snape's potions obstacle in about 1
> minute.

But that was the coolest of all the protections! Hermione states herself 
that lots of wizards lack logic, which would make this challenge a bit 
of a trick question; for someone counting on relying on their magical 
power, they might wind up a little stumped. Or poisoned. Also, I seem to 
remember the Devil's Snare and Fluffy were just as easily dispatched if 
you knew the trick.

[The potions protection always reminded me of the sort of question one 
finds on an LSAT, which is the exam that one takes to gain admission to 
American law schools, or the analytic portion of the GRE, which one 
takes for admission to most other American graduate school programs. Is 
there any equivalent in the British system?]

>
> 4.? Snape, a fully-qualified wizard, can't figure out the Marauder's
> Map, but Fred and George, underage students, could.

For one thing, Snape had already figured out that the parchment is 
"instructions to get into Hogsmeade without passing the Dementors." It's 
an educated guess, but one which is confirmed by Harry's blinking. Then 
Snape only spent a minute poking at the map before he knew all he felt 
he needed to know, which was it's source, the manufacturers. (I think 
Snape knows who MMWP are because Lupin kind of confirms this when he 
talks to Harry afterwards; Harry asks Lupin why Snape thought he got it 
from the manufacturers and Lupin replies that it's because the mapmakers 
would have thought it funny to lure him out of school. This might be a 
lapse in Lupin's logic, but I interpret it to mean that the nicknames 
MMWP are known to Snape, and Lupin realizes this.) In any case I think 
Snape sniffed out an amazing amount of information in a short time -- if 
he'd kept the map for himself he might have eventually cracked it.

>
> 5.? Snape lets Moody intimidate him into not investigating who had
> burgled his office.? He also used a locking charm that Moody broke
> rather handily, not once, but twice.

I wouldn't underestimate the extraordinary cunning of Crouch Jr. to use 
Snape's guilty conscience as a weapon against him. Few things can derail 
Snape from his obsessive detective work, but this does with terrible 
effectiveness. Crouch puts Snape in a terrible bind; right off the bat 
he implies that Snape is already guilty of stocking illegal substances 
(or some incriminating evidence) in his office, then he inserts a 
metaphorical knife into Snape's ribcage and twists it around by implying 
that Dumbledore doesn't trust him and bringing up Snape's DE past, then 
to top this off Crouch implies that if Snape is prowling around after 
dark it's with the purpose of doing some harm to Harry. Quadruple ouch! 
Snape has to back down to simultaneously keep "Moody" from betraying the 
secret of his past to random people (like Filch) and from getting him 
framed for intending harm to Harry. Crouch absolutely does a number on 
Snape here, but it requires quite an effort.

Snape as much as admits that the locking charm on his office is 
breakable by a wizard; evidently he only intended to keep out Peeves and 
less talented students. His lapse was in trusting his fellow faculty, 
not in being incapable of a better locking charm.

>
> 6.? An 11-year old girl crept into Snape's office and stole more
> potions ingredients again.

This I admit was a brilliant move on Hermione's part; she was actually a 
lot smarter to do it right under Snape's nose during the middle of class 
than Crouch Jr. who did it late a night just like any other burglar.

>
> 7.? Snape can't prove that Harry went to Hogsmeade, when all he had
> to do was threaten to burn the map unless Harry came clean.

Ron ran in at exactly the right moment and provided an alibi for them 
map; plus Lupin was already there and appropriating the map for himself. 
There wasn't much else Snape could do at that point; it was one against 
three. Plus, burning the map would in no way guarantee that Harry would 
tell him the truth.

>
> 8.? Snape may have allowed Fudge to bring the dementor to Moody's
> office, where it promptly sucked out Crouch Jr.'s soul, making him as
> responsible or even more responsible than McGonagall.

Other people have argued a lot about this in past posts; suffice it to 
say that Snape probably didn't see this one coming, and contradicting 
the Minister of Magic's demand for a bodyguard might have been way above 
Snape's authority. Fudge can probably fire Dumbledore if he wants to; 
Snape has little recourse.

>
> 9.? He is responsible for Peter's escape, and as a result,
> Voldemort's re-birth.? Had he listened in the Shrieking Shack, there
> would have been an additional wizard there to keep control of the
> situation.?

Peter's escape *is* the result of a mistake on Snape's part; although 
even Dumbledore admits that Snape's assessment of the situation (that 
the children were confounded) is more convincing, and that Sirius hasn't 
been acting like an innocent man. Snape was still doing what he thought 
was right, however misguided. I have an impish inclination to blame the 
others in the shack for not reviving Snape (maybe binding him up, then 
reviving him) when they should have -- it would have helped matters 
quite a bit.

Since there are several other factors responsible for Voldemort's 
return, I'd say Snape bears only a small part of the blame here.

? <Snape also might have Crouch Sr.'s blood on his hands for
needlessly detaining Harry as Harry searched for Dumbledore.>

Oh, but it was only for a few seconds! I'm sure Crouch Jr. would have 
found a way to kill dear old Dad no matter what.

>
> 10.? Experienced dueler that Snape is, he allowed three underage
> wizards to disarm him.? This occurred because Snape didn't have the
> good sense to disarm the kids right away (note that Lupin did disarm
> the students when he arrived in the Shack).???

Probably because he was convinced he was *on the children's side* and 
didn't expect that they'd attack him for trying to save them. (When 
Lupin came rushing in it was for the purpose of stopping all activity 
until he found out the truth about Pettigrew, and when he came in he 
found Harry already with his wand raised, so no, he wasn't taking any 
chances until he found out what was going on. Which was prudent, yes.)  
Plus, for Snape it was three against one, and we know that combined 
spells are proportionately stronger than single ones. I don't think 
dueling is usually so uneven. :-)

OK, Snape is vulnerable, but I wouldn't call him a screw-up. He's more 
unlucky than untalented.

~~Porphyria




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




From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com  Sun Feb  3 21:59:50 2002
From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 16:59:50 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Defending a Snape Rant
Message-ID: <35.218f4da5.298f0cd6@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34595

~~Porphyria
 writes:


> Snape only spent a minute poking at the map before he knew all he felt 
> he needed to know, which was it's source, the manufacturers. (I think 
> Snape knows who MMWP are because Lupin kind of confirms this when he 
> talks to Harry afterwards; Harry asks Lupin why Snape thought he got it 
> from the manufacturers and Lupin replies that it's because the mapmakers 
> would have thought it funny to lure him out of school. This might be a 
> lapse in Lupin's logic, but I interpret it to mean that the nicknames 
> MMWP are known to Snape, and Lupin realizes this.) 

Actually, I have another take on this. In the Shrieking Shack Sirius (or was 
it Lupin..Oy...I keep forgetting things) says that Snape was always following 
them around trying to get them into trouble. Snape might've seen Filch take 
the parchment from them then. 


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




From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Mon Feb  4 00:39:01 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 00:39:01 -0000
Subject: Could the twins turn bad?
In-Reply-To: <003901c1acf9$4db92ce0$e0c71bce@hppav>
Message-ID: <a3kl76+lud8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34596

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" <oppen at c...> wrote:
> It occurs to me that they _might_ be prime candidates for the role 
> of Next Evil Overlord.  [snip]

> They're also anxious to get ahead, and not too worried about how---
> if my dad had caught me gambling at the age they were at at the 
> QWC, he'd have gone up like Mount Krakatoa.  Once they're out of 
> Hogwarts and not under the parental thumbs, they could just as 
> easily turn evil---maybe using a "joke shop" as a cover for 
> selling Dark Arts-related material and brewing up new evil hexes 
> to do things like rob wizard banks.
 
Oh, I wouldn't trust the twins as far as I could throw them if they 
were offering me food, a place to sit down, etc.  And I could 
totally see JKR using them as red herrings, making us think they 
were up to no good when they were really doing something else.  
Hmmm...that sounds familiar.  I think I know why: JKR has already 
DONE this with the twins!  In GoF, they were blackmailing Bagman, 
and the Trio already had the impression that they were up to no 
good.  It turned out to be Bagman who was dealing with a gambling 
addiction and indebtedness to numerous goblins.  Since JKR has 
already done this once with the twins, IMHO, she will not be 
repeating it.  Bagman, for my money <snerk> is the one to watch for 
veiled evil.

Plus, if pranks were a sign of basic inner rottenness, it is 
doubtful that JKR would have related Sirius' youthful indiscretions, 
which make him look far worse than the twins (Snape could have been 
killed).  And yet, he's just a peach of a guy now.  If anything, 
it's folks who carry grudges to the nth degree that consistently get 
painted as evil in the HP books, not pranksters.  Harry clearly is 
separated from the grudge-holders when he spares the life of the man 
who betrayed his parents; anyone else would have gladly seen him 
dead if they'd been in his shoes.

--Barb
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb





From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Mon Feb  4 00:52:39 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 00:52:39 -0000
Subject: Defending a Snape Rant
In-Reply-To: <0AF3CDB3-1908-11D6-8AC4-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a3km0n+ovp7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34597

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Porphyria <porphyria at m...> wrote:
[other snipped defenses of Snape--good though] 

> > 9.? He is responsible for Peter's escape, and as a result,
> > Voldemort's re-birth.? Had he listened in the Shrieking Shack, 
> > there would have been an additional wizard there to keep control 
> > of the situation.?
> 
> Peter's escape *is* the result of a mistake on Snape's part; 
> although even Dumbledore admits that Snape's assessment of the 
> situation (that the children were confounded) is more convincing, 
> and that Sirius hasn't been acting like an innocent man. Snape was 
> still doing what he thought was right, however misguided. I have 
> an impish inclination to blame the others in the shack for not 
> reviving Snape (maybe binding him up, then reviving him) when they 
> should have -- it would have helped matters quite a bit.
> 
> Since there are several other factors responsible for Voldemort's 
> return, I'd say Snape bears only a small part of the blame here.
 
For instance, Snape and Lupin are mutually to blame for not making 
sure he'd taken his Wolfsbane Potion that night.  It was really 
Lupin's transformation into a werewolf that caused them all to 
scatter and made it possible for Pettigrew to escape.  (And why 
didn't Sirius, Lupin or Snape stun the little rat?)  Didn't Snape 
say he came to Lupin's office and discovered the map there, showing 
where he and the others were going?  Clearly he'd been trying to 
bring Lupin the potion, which, as a werewolf, Lupin should have been 
very concerned about.  He was putting a number of people in danger 
by not seeing to this detail.  If anything, (calling all Lupin 
lovers!) Remus Lupin is far more responsible for Pettigrew's escape 
than Snape--although he's hardly the only one.  (See again the above 
note about THREE adult wizards not stunning him.)

> OK, Snape is vulnerable, but I wouldn't call him a screw-up. He's 
> more unlucky than untalented.

Unlucky is putting it lightly, IMO...

> ~~Porphyria

(How cool that you have for your handle the disease I gave Snape in 
my fic to explain his temper and his vampire-like qualities!)

--Barb
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb





From midwife34 at aol.com  Mon Feb  4 02:26:47 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 02:26:47 -0000
Subject: Magically altering clothes 
In-Reply-To: <a3hpal+f0u1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3krh7+84k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34598

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> > > Magically altering robes does not, for some strange reason, 
work 
> > in the Harry Potter world, in the same way that cosmetic surgery 
> > doesn't seem to exist anywhere. I don't think JKR thought out 
that 
> > one.
> 
> I do think you're right about the altering not working, but it's 
> also consistent with many other things in the Potterverse.  
> Polyjuice Potion lasts for only an hour.  Moody needs a prosthetic 
> leg and eye (magic won't just miraculously replace the former body 
> parts).  Magic isn't a cure-all for shabby clothes; you would 
> probably need to continually reinforce the spell.  
> 
> With this in mind, now one has to wonder why one can't put a 
> fairly long-lasting transfiguration spell on any garment to give it 
> any appearance one might wish.  THIS actually seems to be the bit 
> that JKR didn't think out too well, rather than the earlier part.
> 
> --Barb
> 
When I read the part about Ron taking the lace off of his robe and 
messing up the spell by leaving ragged edges, I immediatly wondered 
why he did not grab a roll of spellotape and have Hermione or Harry 
help him turn the edge under and tape it to the inside of the robe. 
It worked for me in college when I had no time to repair a loose hem 
in a pair of pants or a sleeve, except , of course, i used masking 
tape instead of spellotape.....lolol. Another solution I thought of, 
was for Ron to go to the kitchen and see what the House Elves could 
do with the robe. Since they can do laundry, he could have taken the 
robe off and laid it on a table for them to fix, or Ron could have 
left the robe on and let the Elves mend it so they could judge what 
length it needed to be hemmed at....oh well, just a thought. 

Jo Ellen




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Mon Feb  4 02:42:19 2002
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 4 Feb 2002 02:42:19 -0000
Subject: File - netiquette2.txt 
Message-ID: <1012790539.66438506.13838.m12@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34599


NETIQUETTE TIPS FOR HP for GROWNUPS

Harry Potter for Grown Ups is a very high-volume list; so it's important that 
members observe a few rules to help us all navigate through the ocean of 
messages.
 
Members, new and old, are requested to observe certain rules of 'netiquette' and 
good practice, as outlined below.
 
ATTENTION! 

Please note that we have separate club areas for OT posts, Movie-related 
discussions and Announcements:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Announcements

You will need to join OT Chatter if you want to submit an off-topic message to 
the group, Movie if you want to discuss the Harry Potter film(s) and Announcements if you have an announcement.

When you first join the list, you will be on Moderated status.  If it is 
necessary to reject any of your posts, it will be because they have not taken
into account one or more of the rules listed here.  It is, therefore, imperative
that you familiarise yourself with these Netiquette Tips before joining the
discussions.

If you need any advice or clarification at any stage, please don't hesitate to
contact the Moderators and List Elves at hpforgrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com 
 
[Moderators exit, stage left, cackling...]
 
IF YOU HAVEN'T POSTED HERE BEFORE...

Please read the VFAQ (Very Frequently Asked Questions) document in our Files 
area before posting to the group. The answers to many burning newbie questions can be found in this document, and it will save time for everyone.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/VFAQ.htm

It's also helpful to read a few days' worth of messages before posting your own. 
You can do this either by "lurking" (reading messages, but not writing them) for a few days, or by going back through the most recent messages (a daunting task, with such an active group). This way, you'll get a "feel" for the group, and you can make sure you're not repeating something that has been posted recently by someone else. 

If you ask burning questions in your first post, make sure you indicate that 
extra content in the heading and don't just call it "Hi from a newbie!" 


USE/NOTE PREFIXES FOR SOME TOPICS

SHIP: discussion of ships (real or potential romantic relationships among the 
characters)

Please note that if your ship post doesn't use examples from the books (canon), 
it belongs on OT-Chatter rather than the main group. 

FF: discussion of fan fiction or imaginary scenarios.

Please note that these discussions belong on OT-Chatter rather than the main 
group.

ADMIN: 'I must once more ask for your attention, while I give out a few 
notices.' [Dumbledore, GoF, Chap 12] - Important announcements from the Moderators.
 

KEEP THE SUBJECT LINE RELEVANT TO THE CONTENT OF THE POST 

Message board conversations, like "real life" ones, will often drift from one 
subject to another. If the subject line does not change to fit the direction of the conversation, it can frustrate the reader.
 
When replying to a message, please take the time to check the subject line and 
make sure it still matches your post. For example, if the subject line says: "RE: Who's going to die in the next book?" and the topic has segued into a character matchmaking debate (with no mention of death), it's time to change the subject line! 

Spare a thought for the people who are busy preparing FAQ essays for the club - they have to scan all the messages for relevant content, so it isn't very helpful if your post is headed "Digest #345" or "A question."

 
CLEARLY DISTINGUISH YOUR OPINIONS/THEORIES FROM FACTS

If you are expressing an opinion or espousing a pet theory, be sure that the 
other readers will recognize it as an opinion or theory. Using phrases such as IMO (in my opinion), "I believe," "This is all speculation but I think... ," etc. will make it clear that your statements are not necessarily based on facts from the books (canon). It can be very confusing for everyone if someone puts forth a theory without any qualifying language.

 
KEEP YOUR POSTS ON TOPIC
 
In such a large and active group, it's easy for discussions to go off on a 
tangent. If a couple of you find something in common other than Harry Potter, wonderful! Getting to know people is, perhaps, the best thing about clubs. But if you find your discussion getting away from the main point of the club, please continue it off-list.


BANNED TOPICS 

The banned discussions on this list fall into three categories: 

(1) The Holocaust: Discussion of historical parallels is perfectly fine, 
including historical parallels to WWII in the HP series, but please avoid discussion of the Holocaust specifically. 

(2) Politics (especially current US & UK politics), not including speculation 
about Wizarding World politics.  
 
(3) Richard Abanes' book "Harry Potter and The Bible".


AVOID ONE-LINE AND ULTRA-SHORT POSTS

Our message volume is sometimes very high, so one-line posts can push the 
numbers through the roof. Please take a moment to think about the following guidelines:-

- Consider expanding on your point. For example, if you are posing a 
question about the HP books ("What about so-and-so?"), could you add some thoughts of your own to lead off any discussion?

- Consider combining your shorter points/responses with a few others in a 
multi-topic post, making sure the topic line indicates this. However, if your point is substantive (or just plain lengthy), it is best to give it space on its own to make the thread easier to follow.

- Try to avoid "me too!" and "LOL!" posts that have absolutely no other 
content.

Sometimes a brief response is perfectly acceptable; for example, if you are 
correcting an error someone has made and do not have much else to say (e.g.  "You cannot apparate into Hogwarts!") or giving information that you don't want to bury in another message ("The link to that article about Dumbledore's socks is at http://www.anyoldwebsite.com").


TAKE CARE WHEN RESPONDING TO POSTS

If you are replying to a message, please indicate the name of the person who 
wrote the original and include any relevant segments of their post, or a brief summary of their point(s). 

At the same time, please try to delete any parts of the original post that are not relevant to your point(s), especially if the original was really long! Please avoid putting your reply at the end of a very long quoted segment unless absolutely necessary. In most cases, it will be easy enough to delete some or all of the quoted material.

Remember, also, that if you respond in a fresh post rather than using the 
'reply' button, your response will not appear in the "replies to this message" in any search. 

In general, if someone asks a question that has a unique answer, please try to check through the message headers to see if anyone else has responded to it before posting the answer. It's understandable that several people may dash off a response just after the original message, but there should be no need for further posts after that. 

 
TAKE THE TIME TO PROOFREAD YOUR POSTS 

If you're used to forums where speed is important (chat rooms, role playing 
games, etc.), it's easy to fall out of the habit of proofreading. Here, however, your post will be as relevant in five minutes (or, usually, even in five hours) as it is now. 

Before hitting the 'send' button, please take a few minutes to look over your post and correct any typos, spelling/punctuation errors, or problems with sentence structure or capitalization. This will make it much easier to read and help in getting across your point. 

Please avoid using all lower case letters or, worse still, all CAPITAL LETTERS. 

 
BE CONSIDERATE OF OTHER MEMBERS' FEELINGS 

If you disagree with someone's message, no matter how strongly, remember to 
respect the other person's right to his or her own opinion. If you do wish to refute the post, do so gently, by building up your own case, rather than just knocking down the other person's. And never attack your fellow club members (name calling, personal remarks, etc). 

Thanks!! 

>From your Magical Moderators
HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com





From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Mon Feb  4 02:42:19 2002
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 4 Feb 2002 02:42:19 -0000
Subject: File - VFAQ.htm 
Message-ID: <1012790539.66438313.13838.m12@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34600

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020204/1b30b870/attachment.html>

From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Feb  4 02:49:10 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 02:49:10 -0000
Subject: Cedric-marcus-school leaving age / You Go, Porphyria! / More wizard schools 
Message-ID: <a3ksr6+pm0f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34601


Muridae wrote:

> Do we know whether Cedric Diggory was a sixth or seventh year 
> student at the time of the TriWizard Tournament? 

Cedric was a fifth year in PoA: "Wood had pointed out Cedric Diggory 
to him in the corridor; Diggory was a fifth year and a lot bigger 
than Harry."

> Flint's repeated year probably means that he flunked either his 
> O.W.L.'s  or N.E.W.T.'s and had to resit that year rather than any
> other.

Hogwarts DOES have holding students back a year other than fifth or 
seventh: In PS/SS, Hermione scolds the boys that end-of-term exams 
are very important: they determine whether we get into second year. 
Personally, I believe that was JKR making a joke about education 
obsession, where even eight year olds are being told to do stuff 
because it will look good for university admission, rather than 
Hermione herself saying such an obsessive thing.

And the year that Marcus Flint repeated cannot have been fifth year, 
as he was a sixth year in PS/SS, either sixth or seventh in CoS, so 
as to be still around (as a seventh) in PoA. You could be right that 
he repeated seventh year in order to try again on the NEWTs.

> if some of the students did leave after the fifth year. Crabbe and
> Goyle aren't particularly bright, so Draco Malfoy might suddenly 
> find himself bereft of his two sidekicks.

I feel sure that Crabbe and Goyle will stay as long as Draco does, 
simply for the purpose of staying with him.

Porphyria wrote:

> I've been musing over Lupin's character for a little while and 
> thought this was as good a place as any to insert my comments.

This is a forbidden "So True!" reply to your entire post, and btw I 
love purple, I named the Prewetts Porphyry and Perpetua in my fic. 
While I'm at it, your defense of Snape was good, too.

Unc Mark wrote:

> Are we further to guess from the Triwizard Tournament that there
> are only 3 secondary schools worldwide?

In the early part of GoF, Ron tells Harry that Bill used to have a 
penpal at a wizarding school in Brazil, but when Bill couldn't afford 
to go on a school trip to Brazil to meet him (her?), he (she?) got 
angry and sent Bill a cursed hat that did something bad to his ears 
that I don't recall just now. [Incidentally, implying that the 
Weasleys already had money trouble when they had only two kids.] 
Personally, I believe that there are not only several more wizarding 
schools in Europe besides the prestigeous Durmstrang and Beauxbatons, 
but also more wizarding schools in the British Isles besides the 
prestigeous Hogwarts. Here's my reasoning:

I had already decided that there most be 1000 Hogswarts-age 
wizarding kids in the British Isles to maintain the population 
large enough to have all those wizarding businesses and Quidditch 
teams that JKR has mentioned, so I cheered JKR's statement that there 
were 1000 kids at Hogwarts. But the amount of evidence that there are 
250-300 kids at Hogwarts is so immense that it is very laborious to 
explain it all away. Yes, JKR inconveniently *did* say that Hogwarts 
is the only wizarding school in Britain. I very recently came up with 
a solution: all the wizarding schools in the British Isles (four 
schools, all the same size, Hogwarts-original in Scotland, the others 
probably one in Ireland one in England one maybe on Isle of Man, or 
three schools, one is Hogwarts-original, one the same size in 
Ireland, one large in England) are CAMPUSes or BRANCHes of Hogwarts, 
all under the Headmaster of Hogwarts, like the University of 
California has 9 campuses and only the original (UC Berkeley) is 
called Cal. So only the original school is CALLED Hogwarts and the 
others are CALLED from their location or something. But TECHNICALLY 
the statement that Hogwarts has 1000 student and is the only school 
is true, and description of Harry's Hogwarts campus is also true.




From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Mon Feb  4 03:08:14 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 03:08:14 -0000
Subject: Harry didn't forgive Peter (WAS: Could the twins turn bad?)
In-Reply-To: <a3kl76+lud8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3ktuu+mi0a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34602

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" <oppen at c...> wrote:
> 
> Plus, if pranks were a sign of basic inner rottenness, it is 
> doubtful that JKR would have related Sirius' youthful 
indiscretions, 
> which make him look far worse than the twins (Snape could have been 
> killed).  And yet, he's just a peach of a guy now.  If anything, 
> it's folks who carry grudges to the nth degree that consistently 
get 
> painted as evil in the HP books, not pranksters.  Harry clearly is 
> separated from the grudge-holders when he spares the life of the 
man 
> who betrayed his parents; anyone else would have gladly seen him 
> dead if they'd been in his shoes.
> 
Harry's insisitence on sparing Pettigrew is not an act of 
forgiveness.  

"'Harry! gasped Pettigrew, and he flung his arms around Harry's 
knees. 'You--thank you--it's more than I deserve--thank you--'

"'Get off me,' Harry spat, throwing Pettigrew's hands off him in 
disgust. 'I'm not doing this for you. I'm doing it because--I don't 
reckon my dad would've wanted them to become killers--just for you.'"

As his father's faithful friends, he doesn't want Sirius and Remus to 
have blood on their hands.  (He just barely missed being a murderer 
himself that night, if he hadn't "chickened out" when trying to kill 
Sirius.)  I think that if Peter were put on trial and sentenced to 
death, or if Peter were killed by an Auror, Harry wouldn't lose much 
sleep over it.  If the situation were that killing Peter did not 
constitute murder (such as in a War situation), Harry wouldn't have 
stepped in.

--Dicentra, who is glad we can say that Sirius is guilty of nothing




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Mon Feb  4 04:52:55 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 04:52:55 -0000
Subject: Defending Snape
In-Reply-To: <a3k0a9+t8ns@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3l437+dhs4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34603

Cindysphynx wrote:
>....  Snape mastered the art of screwing things up long ago.  Here 
> are the Top 10 reasons Snape is a champion, Grade A, first-class,
> Number One screw-up... <

I've been too busy to write much lately, but I just have to de-lurk to 
defend my poor, much-maligned, misunderstood, vulnerable (OK, maybe 
not so vulnerable) Severus! 

Porphyria and Barb already provided good defenses against most of 
these criticisms.  Here's a few more points.

> #2.  [Snape] picked the Forces of Evil instead of the Forces of Good 
> by becoming a DE in the first place. <  

Definitely not a screw-up.  First of all, this worked tremendously to 
Snape's advantage.  It got him through Vold War I without any attacks 
from Voldy's side.  Then, his turning spy kept him out of Azkaban.  Of 
the other wizards and witches we know of who were Snape's age, the 
vast majority ended up dead or in Azkaban.  Snape came through this 
smelling like a rose. (Other than his hair, which presumably smells 
like unwashed hair.)  Secondly, Snape's DE affiliation worked to 
Dumbledore's advantage, too, since it provided a spy for the "Light" 
side. 

> 6.  An 11-year old girl crept into Snape's office and stole more 
> potions ingredients again. <

It took several students, working together, to rob Snape's office in 
this way.  It only worked because Harry and his friends were willing 
to injure their fellow classmates to obtain the potion ingredients.  
Snape quite properly was more concerned with helping the injured 
students than he was with protecting his possessions.  This shows how 
responsible, concerned, and nice Snape is.  (OK, "nice" is going a bit 
far.)

> 9.  He is responsible for Peter's escape, and as a result, 
> Voldemort's re-birth.  Had he listened in the Shrieking Shack, there 
> would have been an additional wizard there to keep control of the 
> situation.  Snape also might have Crouch Sr.'s blood on his hands 
> for needlessly detaining Harry as Harry searched for Dumbledore. <

The Shrieking Shack part of this has been handled well by Porphyria 
and Barb.  (Other than Barb's saying that Snape, Lupin, or Sirius 
should have stunned Peter.  I didn't get this -- at the time Peter 
escaped, Snape was unconscious and Lupin was a wolf.)

As for blaming Snape for Crouch Sr.'s death  -- tsk, tsk, Cindy, is 
that fair?  If Crouch Sr. had escaped, you no doubt would be saying 
"It's all Snape's fault that poor Wormtail got fed to Nagini.  Snape 
should have prevented Harry from telling Dumbledore about the attack 
on Crouch Sr." 

Well, just kidding.  Seriously, though, Snape's delaying Harry had 
nothing to do with the death of Crouch Sr.  In the Veritaserum 
chapter, Crouch Jr. gives a very detailed account of what happened 
that night.  Crouch Jr. says "I killed my father."  Then, Dumbledore 
asks what he did with the body. Crouch Jr. says "Carried it into the 
forest. Covered it with the Invisibility Cloak. I had the map with me. 
I watched Potter run into the castle.  He met Snape...." So, Crouch 
Sr. was dead *before* Snape delayed Harry. 

Anyway, I don't consider either Lupin *or* Snape to be screw-ups.  JKR 
has obviously intended them to be highly competent and intelligent.  
If they do something dumb, then that's really not in character.  (No, 
I don't consider JKR a "screw-up", either!)

Sirius, on the other hand, can only be understood as someone who is 
tremendously impulsive, and maybe half-mad.  Sheesh, if I were him, 
the first thing I'd do when I got out of Azkaban would be to find an 
owl and send it to Dumbledore.  It would say something like "Peter was 
the Potter's secret-keeper.  He's an animagus.  He's disquised as Ron 
Weasley's rat.  Sincerely, Sirius Black."   No running around slashing 
things for me!

-- Judy
  




From midwife34 at aol.com  Mon Feb  4 09:53:43 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 09:53:43 -0000
Subject: Only 3 magic schools?
In-Reply-To: <a3kamf+s5un@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3lln7+qulf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34604

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
> > 
> Are we further to guess from the Triwizard Tournament that there 
are 
> only 3 secondary schools worldwide? They represent the UK. France, 
> and the Eastern European groups, but conspicuously missing are 
> Americans, Orientals, Africans, or Latinos. Do these populations 
have 
> no magical schools?
> 
> I think that Hogwarts, Durmstrang, and Beauxbaton might be the 
three 
> oldest only, much like the US 'ivy league'. It was mentioned that 
the 
> Tournament hadn't been held in centuries. There are probably 
schools 
> in other regions, maybe we'll see them in later books. 
> 
> Thoughts on the subject?

I remember one of the Weasley kids having a pen pal from a school in 
South America. I can't remember where, but I think a school was 
mentioned in the US, and for some reason the state of Texas comes to 
mind. 

Jo Ellen
> 
> Uncmark




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Mon Feb  4 06:47:44 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 06:47:44 -0000
Subject: Ghosts
Message-ID: <a3laqg+7ht9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34605

I was reading Harry to my niece for about the tenth time when we came 
to Moaning Myrtle talking with Harry in Goblet. My niece thinks 
Myrtle likes Harry and wonders if they will be friends or even more. 

She wonders whether there is anything Harry can do to help her and 
mentioned the Casper movie where ghosts moved on when they completed 
their 'unfinished business'.  I remember similar themes in several 
books and wondered if the theme carried on in the Potterverse.

Thoughts on the subject? What would Myrtle's unfinished business be? 
My niece thinks Harry needs to give her her first kiss. Or maybe 
Harry needs to bring back Olive Hornby to apologize.

Uncmark







From Edblanning at aol.com  Mon Feb  4 11:36:42 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 06:36:42 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Defending Snape (naturally)/Predestination
Message-ID: <8.20ba9494.298fcc4a@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34606

In a message dated 03/02/02 18:43:27 GMT Standard Time, cindysphynx at home.com 
writes:
> 
> ::tearing sound of velcro as the gloves come off::
> 
> I would match Lupin's error rate with Snape's any day.  Snape 
> mastered the art of screwing things up long ago.  Here are the Top 10 
> reasons Snape is a champion, Grade A, first-class, Number One screw-
> up:
> 
(Eloise shouts 'Expelliarmus' quickly) . I hope the formatting's clear, it 
may have done strange things when I edited this.

> 1.  Snape wants to tip the students that Lupin is a werewolf, but he 
> can't get the point across well enough.  He is finally reduced to 
> just telling the kids outright:  "Hey guys, did I ever mention that 
> Lupin is a werewolf?"  Not very impressive.
> 
He hopes they will suss it whilst writing the essay, but Hermione (OK. it 
*is* Hermione who does realise) is the only one who actually appears to have 
written it: Lupin lets them off. But I totally agree that his telling the 
Slytherins is one of Snape's worst, nastiest, pettiest moments
> 
> 2.  He picked the Forces of Evil instead of the Forces of Good by 
> becoming a DE in the first place.  
> 
And, I would say, had been groomed to do so. And he was far from alone. As I 
ranted in my paranoic essay, people (let alone wizards) like Voldemort with 
his insidiously evil message are capable of corrupting the most decent of 
people. We didn't have a very good start, in this respect, I feel.
> 
> 3.  A ten-year old girl solved Snape's potions obstacle in about 1 
> minute.
> 
Dealt with by other contributors. But an exceptional 10 year old. And why 
should his obstacle be any better than any of the others? Quirrel's own was 
the only one they probably couldn't have coped with, and he had conveniently 
disabled it himself.
> 
> 4.  Snape, a fully-qualified wizard, can't figure out the Marauder's 
> Map, but Fred and George, underage students, could.
> 
But the Marauder's map is so childish in spirit and it required a desire to 
make mischief in order to make it work. I doubt Snape was ever a child, 
sprang middle-aged from his mother's womb, if you ask me, and his sneaking 
around is never in the spirit of a light-hearted prank. He comes over all 
pompous with the map, which of course responds appropriately.
Lupin and Crouch-Moody aren't using it lightheartedly, of course, but it will 
surely co-operate with its maker and Crouch receives the map in working mode.
> 
> 5.  Snape lets Moody intimidate him into not investigating who had 
> burgled his office.  He also used a locking charm that Moody broke 
> rather handily, not once, but twice.

Totally agree with second point. Think I'd be a bit intimidated by someone I 
thought was an Auror when the Dark Mark was burning on my forearm and I 
didn't want anyone else to know I'd been a DE, though.

> 6.  An 11-year old girl crept into Snape's office and stole more 
> potions ingredients again.

Agreed
> 
> 7.  Snape can't prove that Harry went to Hogsmeade, when all he had 
> to do was threaten to burn the map unless Harry came clean.

He did threaten to and when Harry stops him correctly assumes that it 
involves instructions to get to Hogsmeade. I don't think he *wants* to burn 
it: he wants to know its secret and if Harry had merely confessed in the face 
of a threat, it wouldn't have been proof, would it?, not proof he could take 
to Dumbledore. ( Although undoubtedly D *would* believe that Harry had been 
sneaking out, and wouldn't let Snape know it )

> 8.  Snape may have allowed Fudge to bring the dementor to Moody's 
> office, where it promptly sucked out Crouch Jr.'s soul, making him as 
> responsible or even more responsible than McGonagall.

*May* is the operative word. If Dumbledore can't override the Minister for 
Magic, then neither can Snape.

> 9.  He is responsible for Peter's escape, and as a result, 
> Voldemort's re-birth.  Had he listened in the Shrieking Shack, there 
> would have been an additional wizard there to keep control of the 
> situation.  Snape also might have Crouch Sr.'s blood on his hands for 
> needlessly detaining Harry as Harry searched for Dumbledore.

I talk about part of this below.
Snape *listen*? What do you want, miracles?Yes, I take your point, but from 
Snape's POV, he knew what was happening, he didn't need to listen. Also, he's 
constitutionally predisposed not to want to hear anything that Hermione has 
to say. An unfortunate character defect, this conviction that he is always 
right. 
Needlessly detaining Harry has always annoyed me. It is ridiculously petty, 
even for Snape and I see at as an uncharacteristically clumsy plot device, 
both to ensure that Crouch Sr does get murdered and to throw suspicion on 
Snape.

> 10.  Experienced dueler that Snape is, he allowed three underage 
> wizards to disarm him.  This occurred because Snape didn't have the 
> good sense to disarm the kids right away (note that Lupin did disarm 
> the students when he arrived in the Shack).  

Well, if you were Snape, would you expect a student to *dare*? And he was 
unlucky that it was the three of them together, it wasn't exactly planned, 
was it? I think that he usually has such authority over students that he 
really expected that his view would prevail. If he expected anything, that 
is. I don't think he was really concentrating on anything other than Sirius 
and Lupin.

But as you say, nobody's perfect. I can take a few imperfections!

Regarding 9 above,
Barb writes:> 
> > Peter's escape *is* the result of a mistake on Snape's part; 
> > although even Dumbledore admits that Snape's assessment of the 
> > situation (that the children were confounded) is more convincing, 
> > and that Sirius hasn't been acting like an innocent man. Snape was 
> > still doing what he thought was right, however misguided. I have 
> > an impish inclination to blame the others in the shack for not 
> > reviving Snape (maybe binding him up, then reviving him) when they 
> > should have -- it would have helped matters quite a bit.
> > 
> > Since there are several other factors responsible for Voldemort's 
> > return, I'd say Snape bears only a small part of the blame here.
> 
> For instance, Snape and Lupin are mutually to blame for not making 
> sure he'd taken his Wolfsbane Potion that night.  It was really 
> Lupin's transformation into a werewolf that caused them all to 
> scatter and made it possible for Pettigrew to escape.  (And why 
> didn't Sirius, Lupin or Snape stun the little rat?)  

Because as you say, Lupin had just transformed. Or are you referring to him 
as 'a little rat' *before* his transformation? Yes, stunning him instead of 
merely handcuffing him would have been a safer option.
(But what of the plot? or are we saying the plot is weak? Pettigrew had to 
escape or Book Four would have been completely different!)
Seriously, getting back to the story, dear Sybil had predicted Pettigrew's 
escape, hadn't she? In this case, we could assume that all of this is 
pre-ordained, that the characters are merely agents of Fate, or a higher 
authority or something and in that sense didn't have a choice....or not, I 
know this could be argued either way ( that the prediction is simply of what 
will happen beacause of everyone's incompetance, but somehow the prediction 
doesn't really sound like that). 

Throughout the series, IMO there is a growing sense that things are being 
worked out according to some pre-ordained plan.
Dumbledore witholds information from Harry somewhere early on IIRC, saying it 
isn't time for him to know. Then there's the notorious 'gleam of triumph'. 
Dumbledore believes that Wormtail being in Harry's debt is a Good Thing. 
There's the feeling that he knows an awful lot that he's not letting on.
Trelawney's prediction is her second genuine one, according to Dumbledore. 
What was the first one?
I am wondering if it did concern the way in Harry is to be the agent of 
Vodemort's ultimate defeat and that many of the 'weaknesses' that the 
characters display are actually not just handy plot devices, but necessary to 
the ultimate working out of a prophecy. ( Which I suppose in a work of 
fiction could come to the same thing, but heck, I'm no philosopher.)
What I don't get, though, is how this would mesh in with the theme of 
personal choice. (Yet another theme with religious parallels, the tension 
between free will and pre-destination.

Eloise


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




From Edblanning at aol.com  Mon Feb  4 12:48:43 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 07:48:43 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What Did Snape Do In GoF?/Snape and Krum
Message-ID: <13.6017938.298fdd2b@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34607

In a message dated 03/02/02 18:45:07 GMT Standard Time, lav at tut.by writes:


>   While re-reading PS/SS today, a thought has crossed my
> mind. It is said in "Goblet of Fire", that Snape has done
> smth for Dumbledore's case, possibly contacted Death Eaters
> or else. But how could he do it?
>   Voldemort knows *for sure* what side Snape is on. Remember
> in PS/SS - Snape opposes Quirrell _directly_ and _openly_.
> So there's no chance Voldemort can be left uninformed about
> Snape. I would even suppose that Severus is #3 or #4 in VSL
> (Voldemort's Slaying List).
>   So the question is: what did Snape do? He couldn't contact
> DE's - most likely they all already know how good Severus
> is. Spy? No chance. It must be something not connected to
> Death Eaters and Voldemort directly. Possibly finding
> allies? Haven't the slightest idea.
> 

I'm really, really cross because AOL decided to shut itself down just as I 
was finishing this and I've had to start again.

Deep breath...

This question has deservedly been touched on before.
Regarding the PS/SS evidence,
1) Voldemort may not have been uner the turban all the time. I don't think he 
was when Harry found him drinking the unicorn blood.
2) The conversation Harry overhears in the Forbidden Forest is ambiguous to 
say the least, even if Voldy is present
3) The most worrying aspect to me is that Quirrel tells Harry in his final 
scene, when Voldy definitely *is* there, that Snape saved him in the 
Quidditch match and engineered refereeing the next match to protect him.

I think that in the first Voldy war, Snape must have been a double agent, 
(hopefully on the side of good). That way, he can persuade Voldy that he's 
been biding his time, keeping Dumbledore's trust, staying at the heart of 
things, where he will again have access to sensitive information.
Another thing in favour of his being a double agent is that it answers 
another difficulty brought up the other day: Why didn't Sirius hear prisoners 
in Azkaban complaining about Snape's betrayal in the same way as about 
Karkaroff's and Pettigrew's? If they thought it was all part of a ruse, that 
Snape was still on their side, they wouldn't mention him at all, would they? 
The Dementors may be blind, but they're not deaf. This would account for 
Sirius apparently not knowing that Snape was a DE.
We only have the same amount of information about Snape as Harry himself. 
Harry can only speculate on what Snape's been doing. The same applies to us.

In the graveyard scene, we are obviously meant to believe that Snape is one 
of the missing trio of DE's, therefore either the faithful servant, the one 
who's fled through fear or the deserter. It ain't necessarily so, ( feels 
burst of song coming on). We don't know whether his place was elsewhere in 
the circle.

Another Snape-thought while I'm on the subject.
There have been two short threads recently regarding Karkaroff.
One is the nature of his (hmm) 'relationship' with Krum, the other is whether 
he was the 'mentor' who recruited snape into the DEs.
On the latest reading of GoF, I couldn't help noticing a certain similarity 
between Snape and Krum. They are quite different in posture and movement and 
Snape isn't, thank goodness, bow-legged or duck-footed, but Krumb is 
described as thin, dark, sallow skinned, with a large, curved nose (thick, 
black eyebrows too, but I'll ignore them for now). And there's the Quidditch. 
Not in the same league, evidently, but canon strongly suggests that Snape's a 
decent player (why else would Lupin suggest that Snape was jealous of James' 
ability in particular, if he was hopeless, his jealousy would be more 
general) and to referee I would think he'd have to be pretty good ( if only 
to dodge the Weasley bludgers!)

Indicative of Karkaroff's taste? Or could these two be somehow related? Does 
Snape have east European connections? (Oh no, not vampires again!)

Eloise. In haste, not wishing to be cut off in full flow again.


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




From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Mon Feb  4 12:56:59 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:56:59 -0000
Subject: Only 3 magic schools?
In-Reply-To: <a3lln7+qulf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3m0er+14s0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34608

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" <midwife34 at a...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
 
> I remember one of the Weasley kids having a pen pal from a school in 
> South America. I can't remember where, but I think a school was 
> mentioned in the US, and for some reason the state of Texas comes to 
> mind. 

Bill Weasley's "pen friend" was from Brazil, same as the snake that Harry 
liberated at the zoo.  

And don't forget the Salem Witches' Institute that had a banner at the World 
Cup, though that name seems more like a reserach institution than a high shool.  

There has been a big thread about this on these boards in the past, though I 
can't remember the dates and furthermore it might have been on the OT board.  
In true compulsive board fashion, it mused about the number of schools in the US 
(since it has 4 or 5 times the muggle population of Great Britain it robably needs 
several schools for htem to be of manageable size) and their locations (Salem, 
Four Corners in the Southwest, Sasquatch country in the Northwest, somewhere 
inthe Appalachians, etc.) and so on.   

The lexicon has an overview from canon, of course!

http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/schools.html




From jqwerty1 at yahoo.com  Mon Feb  4 01:05:33 2002
From: jqwerty1 at yahoo.com (jqwerty1)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 01:05:33 -0000
Subject: What Did Snape Do In GoF?
In-Reply-To: <9535943588.20020203203419@tut.by>
Message-ID: <a3kmot+3qan@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34609

  Voldemort knows *for sure* what side Snape is on. Remember
> in PS/SS - Snape opposes Quirrell _directly_ and _openly_.
> So there's no chance Voldemort can be left uninformed about
> Snape. I would even suppose that Severus is #3 or #4 in VSL
> (Voldemort's Slaying List).

Oh, I don't know, I would think Snape is probably the one Voldemort 
most wants to keep alive at the moment. I'm maybe SS's number one 
fan, but even I admit that there's a good deal of darkness in him, 
and for Voldemort that must the ideal weapon. He's someone very close 
to the war effort, and more importantly, Dumbledore, and he's 
probably the only one of the inner circle (of goodies) that isn't 
100% behind the morals of the light side. There must have been 
something which made he join Voldemort in the first place, and don't 
forget, he's sworn allegiance to the Dark Lord. Undoubtably, 
Voldemort has shown him some kindness or at the least, reason to join 
him, in the past, and Snape is bound to still have some loyalty, 
regardless of how much he may hate him.

A high level enemy who actually has some mixed loyalties must be your 
most powerful weapon in a war - if Voldemort's got any sense, he'll 
keep Snape alive until the last minute, then make him an offer he 
can't refuse.

Jo





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Mon Feb  4 14:10:34 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:10:34 -0000
Subject: Ghosts
In-Reply-To: <a3laqg+7ht9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3m4oq+l3sb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34610

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
> I was reading Harry to my niece for about the tenth time when we came 
> to Moaning Myrtle talking with Harry in Goblet. My niece thinks 
> Myrtle likes Harry and wonders if they will be friends or even more. 
> 
> She wonders whether there is anything Harry can do to help her and 
> mentioned the Casper movie where ghosts moved on when they completed 
> their 'unfinished business'.  I remember similar themes in several 
> books and wondered if the theme carried on in the Potterverse.
> 
> Thoughts on the subject? What would Myrtle's unfinished business be? 
> My niece thinks Harry needs to give her her first kiss. Or maybe 
> Harry needs to bring back Olive Hornby to apologize.
> 
> Uncmark

One of the "big news" expected in OotP is precisly the ghost theme: why 
they turned ghosts, what their magical propieties are, etc. However, I 
very much doubt that anything can be done about them: there are too 
many ghost around for them to be easily "given a chance to rest" by 
having them finish their business, or some suitable variation thereoff. 
If there was an easy solution, it would heve been tried by now, at 
least in those most unconfortable with their undead status.

JKR has mentioned the fact that only unhappy wizards/witches turn 
ghosts (this affirmation is tentatively taken as Canon, even though it 
was said in an interview, like the 1000 student-figure). However, 
lately I've come to believe something (which is, OTOH, pretty baseless, 
so you're welcomed to oppose): that wizards/witches that turn ghosts 
are not just plain unhappy, but also like to be so (thus, they like to 
wallow in their self pity), which suits quite well the two ghosts we 
really know (Nick and Myrtle).

However, on the theme of ghosts, specially surrounding JKR's 
declaration about unhappines, I've always got stuck in the fact that 
the Fat Friar seems to be jolly, even plain happy. Either he takes 
death as a great joke, or there is something we haven't been told which 
makes it consistent with JKR's explanation. Opinions welcomed.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Mon Feb  4 04:00:09 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 04:00:09 -0000
Subject: Characters going bad? My choice is :(Re: Could the twins turn bad?)
In-Reply-To: <003901c1acf9$4db92ce0$e0c71bce@hppav>
Message-ID: <a3l109+809p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34611

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" <oppen at c...> wrote:

> It occurs to me that they _might_ be prime candidates for the role 
> of Next Evil Overlord.  I've never been fond of practical jokers---
> remember, Batman's _worst_ and most frequent enemy is called the 
> Joker.  Sure, they're popular and well-liked _now,_ but apparently 
> so was Tom (Lord Voldemort)Riddle when _he_ was at Hogwarts.

If we're going for major characters going to the Dark side, my 
candidate would by the mysterious Bulgarian Krum. The character 
interests me in that his mentor at Durmstrang, Karkaroff, was a 
Deatheater. As unknown as the character was, I'm intrigued that he 
was so drawn to Hermione and suspect a dark future for the 
relationship.

Consider Krum as an agent for the dark assigned to tempt Hermione to 
drive a wedge in the Potter trio. Hermione was key in foiling the 
first three plans against Potter.

I don't think this is that far-fetched as you might think when 
Valdemort once had a contingency plan of preserving his teen self in 
a diary. 

This may backfire as Krum seemed to be developing real feelings for 
Hermione. He may have been sincere in his invitation to have Hermione 
visit him. 

OR that may be his plan to kidnap Hemione away from the trio. 

OR he may be acting under the Imperius curse making you wonder what 
feelings were his and which were under the curse.

Dark Possibilities. Makes you think?

Uncmark





From Rosenatti at aol.com  Mon Feb  4 08:18:25 2002
From: Rosenatti at aol.com (rosenatti)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 08:18:25 -0000
Subject: Defending Snape, Dissing Sirius
In-Reply-To: <a3l437+dhs4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3lg4i+sp83@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34612

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:
>Snape came through this 
> smelling like a rose. (Other than his hair, which presumably smells 
> like unwashed hair.)  

Now, now. We don't actually know why Snape's hair is perpetually so 
well-oiled. He could well be using some sweet-smelling Dapper Dan 
product to give his locks that slimy, patent-leather sheen. 

> Sirius, on the other hand, can only be understood as someone who is 
> tremendously impulsive, and maybe half-mad.  

I agree; I also feel a rant coming on. As far as I'm concerned, 
Sirius' implied heroic status is suspect until he shows some modicum 
of regret for nearly killing another teenager as a "prank" during his 
student days. And that's something he should have done long before he 
wound up in Azkaban. In the Muggle world, his "prank," without James' 
intervention, would have landed him in prison (or reform school) on 
charges of second-degree murder or manslaughter. If he doesn't 
acknowledge his own potentially criminal stupidity just because he 
doesn't like Snape (what, he assumes it's fine to kill kids he finds 
annoying? what a great message to pass on to his impressionable 
godson), then he's just your garden-variety sociopath. Maybe Snape is 
one, as well, but canon implies that he's actively tried to rectify 
his greatest mistake -- becoming a DE -- and JKR has never disguised 
his psychological shortcomings. Sirius, on the other hand, has been 
painted as a candidate for sainthood and never even been asked to 
apologize to Snape, the kid he tried to kill -- or if he has, he's 
failed to do it. And people wonder why Snape gets so irrational 
around Black? Geez.

*ahem.* It seems have a few problems with Sirius' role as Harry's 
beloved godfather. Can you tell?

"rosenatti"




From jo.jackson at bigpond.com  Mon Feb  4 09:17:40 2002
From: jo.jackson at bigpond.com (Jo Jackson)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:17:40 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups]Hermione and peer pressure
In-Reply-To: <F158H67yRLVbNDN4Cxp00008b3b@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <3C5EC234.20736.106412EF@localhost>

No: HPFGUIDX 34613

Meglet 2 wrote: 

>*grin* I don't think you're being biased at all. I personally see
>Hermione as one of the strongest characters in the HP-verse. The mere
>fact that she has no problems resisting peer pressure to do what she
>thinks is right just astounds me. I wish I were more like her.

The latest research on teens is that few have difficulty resisting peer 
pressure.  (This research is mostly about use of drugs in teenagers - 
revealing that teenagers make a choice to use, or not use, based on their 
own beliefs.  'It's peer pressure' is apparently just not right, and often found 
to be a patronising statement by teens: I'm not able to think for myself...gee 
thanks Mum.)  So it's not so much Hermione's resistance to peer pressure 
we should be impressed by, but her well-thought out choices and 
unprejudiced thinking.

Jo Jackson King




From psion_x at yahoo.com.au  Mon Feb  4 12:14:50 2002
From: psion_x at yahoo.com.au (psion_x)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:14:50 -0000
Subject: Weasley Ages- For the thousandth time
Message-ID: <a3ltvq+loqc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34614

This is a subject that seems to be commented on a lot, and nobody 
seems to be able to get a definite age for Charlie.
I was going through POA today, and discovered that in Chapter Twelve 
on Pg. 184 (Australian Paperback edition)McGonagall clearly states to 
Harry- "And Potter-do try and win, won't you? Or will be out of the 
running for the EIGHTH (my emphasis) year in a row, as Prof. Snape 
was kind enough to remind me only last night..."
We know that Harry recieved the Firebolt for Christmas in his third 
year and doesn't get it back until late January, early Febuary 1994.
1994-8 is 1986.
Since Gryffindor hasn't won the Quidditch Cup, which is clearly 
different to the House Cup (In Book One Ron sees himself in the 
Mirror of Esired holding BOTH cups) since Charlie Weasley left, 
obviously 1986 is that year.
Charlie is therefore more than likely to be 18 in 1986, and was 
therefore born in 1968 and is about 26/27 in Goblet of Fire.
Bill's age remains a mystery, though he can't be THAT much older, 
it's unlikely that his thirty yet, but probably close to it 
considering how Molly is worried about him not been 'settled down' 
yet.

Anywho I hope this clears somethings up.

Anonymoose :O)






From jo.jackson at bigpond.com  Mon Feb  4 09:47:13 2002
From: jo.jackson at bigpond.com (Jo Jackson)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:47:13 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's goal, Harry's resilience
In-Reply-To: <a3ih7r+lmlh@eGroups.com>
References: <20020203050923.22223.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3C5EC921.29500.107F216B@localhost>

No: HPFGUIDX 34615

Dear all

The backbone of a book is supposedly the burning desire of the main 
character.  What exactly is Harry's do you think?  

The latest research on child development tells that the first four years of a 
child's life are the most important.  Harry, of course, has only one year with 
his parents (with whom he is very strongly bonded) before moving to an 
existence where he is shown no love.  The only attention he gets is 
'negative'.  

For children with this type of upbringing some still do well...as long as there 
is some love found somewhere.  Most children with Harry's upbringing do 
not do well at all...no love = no life success.  I speculate that the intensity 
of the bond in those first months of life is what has carried Harry 
through...and he remembers every other bit of positive attention he has 
ever recieved as a child...'you bowed to me in a shop once'.  

Some children with an abusive background however, turn into very special 
people.  The studies that are done on these people talk about the 
extraordinary quality of resilience they have...and resilience is Harry's 
dominant characteristic, IMO.  

These resilient people have tend to be more compassionate and empathic 
than average...and their sense of self-worth often comes from their ability 
to serve others.  But it is developed early, this compassion...I imagine the 
young Harry protecting pets, other small children etc. from Dudley.  These 
people are also optimistic, and tend to believe that they can make a 
difference.  They try not to dwell on the past, but only take the things from 
it that will be useful to their own life journey.  All like Harry?

Anyway, what does Harry want to do?  Is it simply to ensure that no other 
baby loses his parents to Voldemort...that would be my theory I guess.  I 
suppose I'm looking for a life purpose that explains his lack of questions 
about his background.

But I think JKR has done a very realistic portrait of resilience...how it 
develops, and the difference those people make in the world.

Jo Jackson King (whose mother and husband both have Harry levels of 
resilience, for the same kind of reasons....my own childhood was 
unfortunately happy!)





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Mon Feb  4 13:51:52 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 13:51:52 -0000
Subject: Defending a Snape Rant
In-Reply-To: <0AF3CDB3-1908-11D6-8AC4-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a3m3lp+m87b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34616

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Porphyria <porphyria at m...> wrote:

> > 4.  Snape, a fully-qualified wizard, can't figure out the
Marauder's
> > Map, but Fred and George, underage students, could.
> 
> For one thing, Snape had already figured out that the parchment is 
> "instructions to get into Hogsmeade without passing the Dementors."
It's 
> an educated guess, but one which is confirmed by Harry's blinking.
Then 
> Snape only spent a minute poking at the map before he knew all he
felt 
> he needed to know, which was it's source, the manufacturers. (I
think 
> Snape knows who MMWP are because Lupin kind of confirms this when he 
> talks to Harry afterwards; Harry asks Lupin why Snape thought he got
it 
> from the manufacturers and Lupin replies that it's because the
mapmakers 
> would have thought it funny to lure him out of school. This might be
a 
> lapse in Lupin's logic, but I interpret it to mean that the
nicknames 
> MMWP are known to Snape, and Lupin realizes this.) In any case I
think 
> Snape sniffed out an amazing amount of information in a short time
-- if 
> he'd kept the map for himself he might have eventually cracked it.
> 

Also, the map was specifically designed for the benefit of people like
Fred and George and the opposition of people like Snape; of course the
twins would figure it out -- they're the closest thing Hogwarts
currently has to the Marauders.  Considering that Snape had the map in
his possession for a very short time, I think he made quite a lot of
headway. (And we don't know how long it took the twins to work it all
out, either.)  I agree, he would've figured it out if given half a
chance.

(Pause for a mental image of Snape intoning "I solemnly swear that I
am up to no good.")

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com






From mrgrrrargh at aol.com  Mon Feb  4 01:19:34 2002
From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 20:19:34 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Only 3 magic schools?
Message-ID: <139.8cd8ebc.298f3ba6@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34617

Uncmark:

> Are we further to guess from the Triwizard Tournament that there are 
> only 3 secondary schools worldwide? They represent the UK. France, 
> and the Eastern European groups, but conspicuously missing are 
> Americans, Orientals, Africans, or Latinos. Do these populations have 
> no magical schools?

Just so you know, in the states the PC term for "Orientals" is Asians. 
Secondly, nothing in the book says that these are the only three. Since there 
is a book on Magical education on Europe there must be more than three... or 
it is one darn short book.

And why does everyone assume that just because JKR doesn't point out the race 
of a character that he/she is Caucasian?

-SpyGameFan


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





From Jefrigo21 at aol.com  Mon Feb  4 14:46:58 2002
From: Jefrigo21 at aol.com (Jefrigo21 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 09:46:58 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Weasley Ages- For the thousandth time
Message-ID: <150.85254b2.298ff8e2@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34618

"psion_x" wrote:
Charlie is therefore more than likely to be 18 in 1986, and was therefore born in 1968 and is about 26/27 in Goblet of Fire.Bill's age remains a mystery, though he can't be THAT much older, it's unlikely that his thirty yet, but probably close to it considering how Molly is worried about him not been 'settled down' yet.

________________________

My guess for Bill's age is that he might be 28/29 years old.  I agrees with psion_x on this idea.  



From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Mon Feb  4 14:59:31 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:59:31 -0000
Subject: Other magic schools/Shrieking Shack
In-Reply-To: <a3lln7+qulf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3m7kj+orha@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34619

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" <midwife34 at a...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
> > > 
> > Are we further to guess from the Triwizard Tournament that there 
> > are only 3 secondary schools worldwide? They represent the UK. 
> > France, and the Eastern European groups, but conspicuously 
> > missing are Americans, Orientals, Africans, or Latinos. Do these 
> > populations have no magical schools?
> > 
> > I think that Hogwarts, Durmstrang, and Beauxbaton might be the 
> > three oldest only, much like the US 'ivy league'. It was 
> > mentioned that the Tournament hadn't been held in centuries. 
> > There are probably schools in other regions, maybe we'll see 
> > them in later books. 

Hermione mentions merely that these are the three biggest schools in 
Europe.  That would imply that there are others.  JKR has stated 
explicitly that Hogwarts is the only one in the British Isles.

> I remember one of the Weasley kids having a pen pal from a school 
> in South America. I can't remember where, but I think a school was 
> mentioned in the US, and for some reason the state of Texas comes 
> to mind. 

Bill had a penfriend in Brazil.  The Salem Witches Institute is 
mentioned at the QWC in GoF, but it is not clear whether it is a 
school or research facility or what.  The popularity of Quidditch 
throughout the world argues for local magic schools wherever it is 
played (after all--they'd have to get their players from 
somewhere).  

"Quidditch Through the Ages" mentions three Canadian Quidditch teams 
(the best--so it's clear that there are more): the Moose Jaw 
Meteorites, the Haileybury Hammers, and the Stonewall Stormers.  It 
is explained that Quidditch isn't as popular in the US as Quodpot, 
but that in recent years a couple of US teams have gained 
international recognition: the Sweetwater All-Stars (which may be 
the Texas reference you're remembering) and the Fitchburg Finches, 
from Massachusetts.  Quidditch teams are also given for the European 
mainland, South America, Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand.  
The list has debated locations of North American wizarding schools 
before, but while there is no clear consensus on where they are, 
their existence is generally accepted, as well as schools in the 
other locations mentioned.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

judyserenity quite correctly noted that when everyone left the 
Shrieking Shack in PoA, Snape was unconscious, and so he couldn't 
have stunned Pettigrew.  However, when they were leaving, Lupin was 
not yet a werewolf, and so either he or Sirius could have done this 
and simply used the same spell to move Pettigrew's body that they 
were already using for the unconscious Snape.  (If anything, this 
further exonerates Snape from responsibility for Pettigrew's escape.)

--Barb





From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Mon Feb  4 15:08:42 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 15:08:42 -0000
Subject: Ghosts
In-Reply-To: <a3laqg+7ht9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3m85q+g8no@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34620

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
> I was reading Harry to my niece for about the tenth time when we 
> came to Moaning Myrtle talking with Harry in Goblet. My niece 
> thinks Myrtle likes Harry and wonders if they will be friends or 
> even more. 
> 
> She wonders whether there is anything Harry can do to help her and 
> mentioned the Casper movie where ghosts moved on when they 
> completed their 'unfinished business'.  I remember similar themes 
> in several books and wondered if the theme carried on in the 
> Potterverse.
> 
> Thoughts on the subject? What would Myrtle's unfinished business 
> be? My niece thinks Harry needs to give her her first kiss. Or 
> maybe Harry needs to bring back Olive Hornby to apologize.

Olive Hornby is a good guess, but unfortunately, the Ministry 
forbade Myrtle from continuing to haunt Olive, so that's why she was 
banished to the castle.  (So, perhaps, her "unfinished business" 
will never be finished.)  

The other possibility is that since Tom Riddle was responsible for 
her death, the final fall of Voldemort would be necessary for her to 
no longer have "unfinished business."  Perhaps when Voldemort lost 
his power when Harry was a baby, she had some way of knowing that he 
wasn't really COMPLETELY gone, and so she didn't move on.  

One has to wonder, by extension, what the "unfinished business" is 
of the other ghosts.  (Actually, Nick's angst about his botched 
beheading is pretty obvious, and not ever likely to be resolved.)  
The Friar seems way too cheerful to have unfinished business, but he 
could simply be like Binns and have such an obsessive attachment to 
the activities he performed in life that he continues to perform 
them in death.  (Perhaps the Friar worked at cleaning the monastery 
in his life, and now he assists the house-elves.)  Frankly, I don't 
really WANT to know about the Bloody Baron, but of all the ghosts, I 
have the feeling that his story will turn out to have some sort of 
significance in future books....

--Barb
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb





From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com  Mon Feb  4 15:22:48 2002
From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 09:22:48 -0600
Subject: musings about new location
Message-ID: <3C5EA748.1AF55CE9@kingwoodcable.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34621

I was thinking about the new locations, and for a while I thought we
might go see Godric's Hollow. I still think this is likely, as I Believe
we'll be learning more about the Potters. 

While musing on the other places we could possibly visit, I was thinking
about how far D is willing to go to defeat V. Harry already does well
DADA, so why not train him in the Dark arts as well? I'm wondering if D
is going to send Harry to Durmstrang for part of the next book to get
some special training that will help empower him for the coming
battle(s?). 

I was also thinking a little more about the Secret-Keeper. How likely is
it that Lily is the one who performed the actual Fidelius Charm. From
what we know...Lily, James, Sirius, and Peter were the only ones who
knew who the SK was. I don't think D knew...he just knew that Sirius was
going into hiding. Anyway...If this is the case (and I might be
remembering D's part in this wrong), then the only person that could
handle the charm would be Lily. 

Your thoughts?

-Katze



From Edblanning at aol.com  Mon Feb  4 15:53:42 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:53:42 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Flying hedgehogs (was: Could the twins turn bad?)
Message-ID: <c9.1cc28c5d.29900886@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34622

In a message dated 04/02/02 00:39:33 GMT Standard Time, blpurdom at yahoo.com 
writes:


> Oh, I wouldn't trust the twins as far as I could throw them if they 
> were offering me food, a place to sit down, etc.  And I could 
> totally see JKR using them as red herrings, making us think they 
> were up to no good when they were really doing something else.  
> Hmmm...that sounds familiar.  I think I know why: JKR has already 
> DONE this with the twins!  In GoF, they were blackmailing Bagman, 
> and the Trio already had the impression that they were up to no 
> good.  It turned out to be Bagman who was dealing with a gambling 
> addiction and indebtedness to numerous goblins.  Since JKR has 
> already done this once with the twins, IMHO, she will not be 
> repeating it.  Bagman, for my money <snerk> is the one to watch for 
> veiled evil.
> 

Uncmarc:
>If we're going for major characters going to the Dark side, my 
>candidate would by the mysterious Bulgarian Krum. The character 
>interests me in that his mentor at Durmstrang, Karkaroff, was a 
>Deatheater. As unknown as the character was, I'm intrigued that he 
>was so drawn to Hermione and suspect a dark future for the 
>relationship

 and see my remarks in my last post about Karkaroff/ Krum/Snape

Goody, goody. Lots of healthy suspicions flying around!

Inspired by Alexander and his lovely quote,

>> One must be a complete paranoic to search for the
>> hedgehog at the top of a fir tree.
>>     Pavel Shumilov.

I would like to propose the founding of the Order of the Flying Hedgehog (an 
oranisation for sensitive and thoughtful vigilantes) and make the following 
preliminary suggestions:
Motto: 'Constant Vigilance'.
Proposed Honorary President: Alastor Moody (to be approached).
Aim: the discovery of all possible associates and sympathisers of Lord 
Voldemort, past, present and future.
Principles:  the dual assumptions that all are guilty until proved innocent 
and all innocent until proved guilty. 
Benefits: the justification of otherwise slanderous/libellous attacks on 
characters who may be blameless (see Principles, above) thus avoiding 
embarassing climb- downs when proved wrong.

An assortment of flashing badges is under development (Ludo Bagman is Ever So 
Evil is well on the way, need some more slogans for the other suspects, come 
on you guys)

Eloise

Did I ever tell you about that time I was walking through the woods and a 
hedgehog fell on my head?
Did you know (seriously) that in some parts of France (Les Landes) you have 
to have insurance against giant pine cones falling on your car? Or are they 
hedgehogs, too? Quite similar when travelling at speed.


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




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Mon Feb  4 16:13:50 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 16:13:50 -0000
Subject: What Did Snape Do In GoF?/ Snape and Krum/ Ghosts
In-Reply-To: <13.6017938.298fdd2b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a3mbvu+rl87@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34623

Alexander said:
>>   While re-reading PS/SS today, a thought has crossed my
>> mind. It is said in "Goblet of Fire", that Snape has done
>> smth for Dumbledore's case, possibly contacted Death Eaters
>> or else. But how could he do it?
>>   Voldemort knows *for sure* what side Snape is on. Remember
>> in PS/SS - Snape opposes Quirrell _directly_ and _openly_. <<

Eloise replied:
> This question has deservedly been touched on before.
> Regarding the PS/SS evidence,
> 1) Voldemort may not have been uner the turban all the time. I don't 
> think he was when Harry found him drinking the unicorn blood....<

I think Voldy *was* with Quirrel during all of Harry's first year at 
school.  Quirrel says something like "Voldemort is always with me."  
However, it's not clear that Snape was supposed to know about 
Quirrel's allegiance to Voldemort.  Perhaps Snape thought Quirrel 
wanted the Philosopher's Stone for himself. Some here have speculated 
the Voldy was hiding his presence from Snape, because Voldy was very 
weak and was unsure of Snape's loyalty to him.  This sounds plausible 
to me.  

Eloise also said:
> [Snape] can persuade Voldy that he's been biding his time, keeping
> Dumbledore's trust, staying at the heart of things, where he will
> again have access to sensitive information.  Another thing in
> favour of his being a double agent is that it answers another 
> difficulty brought up the other day: Why didn't Sirius hear 
> prisoners in Azkaban complaining about Snape's betrayal
> in the same way as about Karkaroff's and Pettigrew's?
> If they thought it was all part of a ruse, that Snape was still 
> on their side, they wouldn't mention him at all, would they? <

Very good point about Azkaban, Eloise -- the DEs there seem to think 
Snape is really on their side.  And, I think you're right that Snape 
is pretending to still be loyal to Voldy.  When discussing Snape's 
spying, an important point often gets left out here: several times, 
Voldy says that he *always* knows when someone is lying.  So, even if 
Voldy is not sure of Snape's loyalty, he may think he will be able to 
tell whether Snape's information is accurate or not.  Heck, 
overconfidence is Voldy's middle name! 

Eloise also said:
> There have been two short threads recently regarding Karkaroff.
> One is the nature of his (hmm) 'relationship' with Krum, the other 
> is whether  he was the 'mentor' who recruited snape into the DEs.
> On the latest reading of GoF, I couldn't help noticing a certain 
> similarity between Snape and Krum.... 
> Indicative of Karkaroff's taste? Or could these two be somehow 
> related? Does Snape have east European connections?....<

Actually, I noticed right off the bat that Krum was described as 
having the same physical traits as Snape -- dark hair, dark eyes, 
sallow skin, hooked nose.  As for Krum's thick eyebrows, Snape isn't 
described that way, but the picture of him that JKR displayed on her 
recent TV special had very thick eyebrows. (Too bad -- I'm no fan of 
thick eyebrows, in fact, I often threaten my husband with a tweezer.  
Oops, I digress.) 

So, yes, there seems to be a strong physical resemblance.  But, Snape 
doesn't act like he's related to Krum.  So, it's possible that 
Eloise is right about Karkaroff being attracted to the "dark, sallow, 
hooked-nose" type.  Ugh.  I found the thought of Karkaroff being 
attracted to Krum pretty nauseating; the thought of him wanting Snape 
is even worse.  By the way, I re-read the description of Karkaroff, 
and he is described if ways that could be thought of as 
stereotypically gay -- "fruity" voice, weak chin hidden by a goatee, 
etc. 

There is another piece of evidence suggesting a close relationship 
between Snape and Karkaroff.  When Snape believes no one can hear them 
(in the Yule Ball scene) he calls Karkaroff "Igor."  That may be the 
*only* time in cannon that Snape calls someone by their first name.  
He usually calls superiors by their title (Headmaster, Minister), and 
other faculty by their last name (Lupin, Lockhart, etc.) 

While we're on my favorite topic, Snape, I previously said:
>> Snape came through this smelling like a rose. (Other than his
>> hair, which presumably smells like unwashed hair.) <<

And Rosentatti objected, saying:
> Now, now. We don't actually know why Snape's hair is perpetually so 
> well-oiled. He could well be using some sweet-smelling Dapper Dan 
> product to give his locks that slimy, patent-leather sheen. <

Well, I just added in that part about unwashed hair because I couldn't 
imagine Snape *literally* smelling like a rose.  I actually have 
brought up the same point about Snape's hair, saying maybe he just 
uses "greasy kid stuff."  

What is it about Slytherins and greased hair, anyway?  In CoS, Mr. 
Bourgin (proprietor of the store on Knockturn Alley) is said to have a 
voice "as oily as his hair", which I guess means it's pretty oily.  
And Draco has slicked-back hair.  (In the movie, Tom Felton's hair 
looked like it was glued to his scalp.) 


Barb mentioned something interesting about Myrtle (Barb also said 
something nice about my last post -- thanks, Barb.!)
> The other possibility is that since Tom Riddle was responsible for 
> her death, the final fall of Voldemort would be necessary for her to 
> no longer have "unfinished business." ....<

It seems likely to me that Moaning Myrtle was Voldemort's very first 
murder victim.  If this is so, then perhaps she will play some 
important role in the final battle with Voldemort.  When Myrtle showed 
up in GoF, it made me think there was some important reason why JKR 
wants her around for the rest of the series. 

On the topic of ghosts, Barb also said:
> One has to wonder, by extension, what the "unfinished business" is 
> of the other ghosts. (Actually, Nick's angst about his botched 
> beheading is pretty obvious, and not ever likely to be resolved.) 
> The Friar seems way too cheerful to have unfinished business, but he 
> could simply be like Binns and have such an obsessive attachment to 
> the activities he performed in life that he continues to perform 
> them in death.<

This theory sounds right to me.  I wonder, though, why Nick can't just 
detach his head?  I mean, Nick can change his clothes, so he's not 
completely stuck in the form he had when he died.  And, the "quarter 
inch of skin and sinew" holding his head on must be dust for centuries 
by now.  Maybe Nick *could* detach his head, if he realized he had the 
power to do so? 

About the Fat Friar, he really seems to enjoy helping people.  Maybe 
that is why he stays around. (Like a ghost version of a Boddhisatva?)


-- Judy




From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Mon Feb  4 16:38:28 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 16:38:28 -0000
Subject: Defending Snape, Dissing Sirius
In-Reply-To: <a3lg4i+sp83@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3mde4+vdbs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34624

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rosenatti" <Rosenatti at a...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:
Sirius, on the other hand, has been 
> painted as a candidate for sainthood and never even been asked to 
> apologize to Snape, the kid he tried to kill -- or if he has, he's 
> failed to do it. And people wonder why Snape gets so irrational 
> around Black? Geez.
> 
> *ahem.* It seems have a few problems with Sirius' role as Harry's 
> beloved godfather. Can you tell?
> 
::pulls out SINISTER pin and flashes "Sirius is Dead Sexy" in green::

Now that I've also shown my bias...

Sirius sat in Azkaban for 12 years knowing that Peter was out there. 
It wasn't until he saw that Peter was in a position to harm Harry that
he went ballistic, escaped, and went after the Rat like a madman.  He
also risked recapture as soon as he heard about Harry's scar hurting,
and showed clear parental protectiveness throughout GoF.  I don't
think there's any doubt he loves Harry like his own son, an extension
of what he felt for James.  Impetuous as he is, his heart is in the
right place, Snape prank notwithstanding.

--Dicentra, who wishes people would forgive Sirius for being a dumb
teenager already





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Feb  4 16:42:11 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 16:42:11 -0000
Subject: Excuses, excuses (more Lupin) & a Snape Rant
In-Reply-To: <a3k0a9+t8ns@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3mdl3+q5aq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34625

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

> ::tearing sound of velcro as the gloves come off::
> 
> I would match Lupin's error rate with Snape's any day.  Snape 
> mastered the art of screwing things up long ago.  Here are the 
Top 10 
> reasons Snape is a champion, Grade A, first-class, Number 
One screw-
> up:

Oh, Snape very definitely  has an attitude problem, very definitely. 
Though I wouldn't characterize it as screw *up*. <veg> 

Most of the points have already been dealt with, but

 
> 
> 3.  A ten-year old girl solved Snape's potions obstacle in about 
1  minute.

IIRC Hermione had to think it over.IMO the obstacles were never 
meant to be impassable. They are lures for the thief (wizards 
can't resist showing off, remember). Why leave three 
broomsticks in the Keys section, why not fill all five bottles with 
poison, why not set the chess board with a problem which Black 
can't win?
> 
> 4.  Snape, a fully-qualified wizard, can't figure out the 
Marauder's  Map, but Fred and George, underage students, 
could.

Snape only had it for a few minutes. I'm sure he would have 
figured it out if he'd had a few more.

> 
> 5.  Snape lets Moody intimidate him into not investigating who 
had  burgled his office.  He also used a locking charm that 
Moody broke  rather handily, not once, but twice.

Snape's locking charm is just enough to discourage entry by the 
unauthorized --he *doesn't* want to make it look like he's hiding 
something.

> 7.  Snape can't prove that Harry went to Hogsmeade, when all 
he had  to do was threaten to burn the map unless Harry came 
clean.

The map is *evidence*, it mustn't be destroyed.
> 
> 8.  Snape may have allowed Fudge to bring the dementor to 
Moody's  office, where it promptly sucked out Crouch Jr.'s soul, 
making him as  responsible or even more responsible than 
McGonagall.

Snape, as a reformed DE, dare not put his loyalty to the Ministry 
in question, even if the MoM is wrong.
> 
> 9.  He is responsible for Peter's escape, and as a result, 
> Voldemort's re-birth.  Had he listened in the Shrieking Shack, 
there  would have been an additional wizard there to keep control 
of the situation.  
 
I have a new theory about this: see next post



Snape also might have Crouch Sr.'s blood on his hands for 
> needlessly detaining Harry as Harry searched for Dumbledore.
> 

As has been noted, Crouch was already dead. Snape's 
interference did stop Harry from vainly looking for Dumbledore in 
the Staff Room, which would have wasted even more time.  I'm 
also quite sure that Dumbledore can get out of his office far 
more quickly than anyone else can get in, even with the 
password, so Snape may  actually have helped by making Harry 
lose his temper.  Standing outside the boss's door and yelling 
can be a most effective way to get in without an appointment. I've 
done it myself, once or twice. 

> 10.  Experienced dueler that Snape is, he allowed three 
underage  wizards to disarm him.  This occurred because 
Snape didn't have the  good sense to disarm the kids right away 
(note that Lupin did disarm  the students when he arrived in the 
Shack).    

Snape, reformed DE, will never, ever attack Harry Potter in front of 
witnesses.  

Pippin




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Feb  4 16:48:00 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 16:48:00 -0000
Subject: Eureka! Snape and the Marauder's Map
Message-ID: <a3me00+krrk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34626


I believe I have solved the mystery of Snape's behavior when he 
interrogates Harry about the Marauder's Map in PoA. That is, if 
Snape knew something about "the manufacturers", why didn't he 
question Lupin more directly?

<theory>
I am kicking myself, because I should have realized this as soon 
as I finished GoF. The name Snape recognizes from the Map is 
*Wormtail*. He doesn't know it from Hogwarts, he knows it from 
being a Death Eater, and (this is the kicker) he thinks "Wormtail" 
is Voldemort's code name for the traitor  *Sirius Black*.  It doesn't 
matter that there's no physical resemblance between Pettigrew 
and Black, even in Death Eater robes. A little polyjuice goes 
along way, as Snape knows perfectly well. 

When Snape summons Lupin to his office, Lupin has no idea 
that Snape knows anything about Wormtail, and of course *he*  
thinks Wormtail is the one person who *couldn't* have given 
Harry the Map. Thus the stage is set for a comedy of errors. 
When Lupin says, "Wormtail or one of those people?" it's the 
perfect wrong remark. Snape is bound to believe that Lupin is 
baiting him (again!) but he can't question Lupin more directly 
without revealing the source of his knowledge. 

This  explains why Snape doesn't repeat his threat to destroy the 
Map: it's evidence. It makes Snape's continued complaints to 
Dumbledore about Lupin perfectly understandable, and it also 
makes sense of Snape's outright refusal to listen in the 
Shrieking Shack. 


Snape sees the activated Map in Lupin's office, the map which 
proudly bears the name of someone Snape knows to be  Death 
Eater.  It's obvious to Snape that Lupin is in league with Black, 
either as ally or dupe. He runs out to the Shack, and discovers 
that Sirius has hostages. Then the kids start telling him some 
wild story about Pettigrew. Snape is in no mood to listen, and 
there's no time. Lupin could turn into a bloodthirsty monster at 
any moment and he hasn't had his potion. *Of course* Snape 
ties  Lupin up.  It's quite sensible of him.

But Snape doesn't behave like a reasonable man, and this, I 
believe, is why. Suppose Snape is the spy who revealed to 
Dumbledore that someone close to the Potters was giving 
information to Voldemort. Snape told Dumbledore he suspected 
this person, known only as Wormtail, was in reality Sirius Black.  
Snape has believed all these years that James chose to 
disregard this warning and trust Sirius anyway. His berating 
Harry for arrogance in the office gives some basis for this. Then 
he's told that James actually did switch Secret Keepers, and 
picked Pettigrew who really was the traitor. So it's  all Snape's 
fault. Snape can no more admit to guilt than Lupin admit to 
anger. Snape goes into hysterical denial and no wonder.

He thinks  Black might at any moment reveal that  Snape himself 
is a Death Eater, something Harry would be quite willing to 
believe.  Snape also  dares not give Black a chance to bewitch 
him.  Wand or no wand, Black is dangerous. He managed to get 
out of Azkaban without a wand, who knows what he can do?  So 
Snape announces that he intends to turn Black over to the 
Dementors, which is what even Harry thinks the traitor deserves, 
and gets blasted unconscious for his pains. 


Then,  thanks to Lupin, Pettigrew gets away, leaving the whole 
issue still in doubt. Really, looking at it this way, Lupin got off 
easy. If I were Snape, I wouldn't have bothered spilling the 
secret,  I'd have murdered him outright. <g>

</theory>

 Fire away!

Pippin




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Mon Feb  4 17:17:27 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 17:17:27 -0000
Subject: About Ron (not shipping)
In-Reply-To: <134269124566.20020202121115@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <a3mfn7+9t3u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34627

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:
> Except that the Weasleys didn't pay for the trip to Egypt out of 
> pocket; they won a contest.  Otherwise, we don't hear of any holiday 
> trips taken, not even to visit relatives.  So the Weasleys are too 
> poor both for new clothes for everyone AND holiday trips.  

No, Mr. and Mrs. Weasley go to Romania (and did they go to Egypt too?) 
during the books, and I believe it is mentioned on one occasion that 
their children actually refused to go: leading me to believe that 
vacations are not completely unusual in that household. 

(And 
> since you said you're the oldest of 8, I'm unclear about why the 
> OLDEST child wore hand-me-downs; as the YOUNGEST of 5; it should be 
> obvious why I wore hand-me-downs.)

Relatives, friends. A lot of people, when they grow out of clothes, 
put them in a box, and set it off on its travels. Some of my favourite 
clothes still come from hand-me-down boxes that eventually reach us 
from people you don't even know. 

> 
> > Magically altering robes does not, for some strange reason, work 
> > in the Harry Potter world, in the same way that cosmetic surgery 
> > doesn't seem to exist anywhere. I don't think JKR thought out that 
> > one.

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne <siskiou at e...> wrote:

> Saturday, February 02, 2002, 10:34:52 AM, lucky_kari wrote:
> 
> > As for Ron, not having any attention paid to him, I always thought 
> > that was just his insecurity.
> 
> But it has to come from somewhere.

You didn't adress my example of Percy, did you? :-) Would you say his 
insecurity comes from anywhere?

> 
> >  I doubt very much that the parents pay 
> > way more attention to their older boys.
> 
> Maybe not more attention, but it sounds as if there
> successes a talked about often.

Not really. Mrs. Weasley says some appreciative things about Percy, 
but only when he's under ATTACK from his brothers. Percy obviously 
doesn't believe he's getting recognition, as witnessed by his 
continual attempt to wrench the conversation to his accomplishments. 
Does anyone ever listen when we're present? No. What reason do we have 
to believe that they listen when we're not witness to the going-ons of 
the Weasley family? And, he's not respected by his siblings at 
all. Percy strikes me as very insecure, and the most like Ron in the 
family. If I had to guess, I would peg him as the most likely to share 
Ron's anger about being poor. (And, he's the only Weasley who 
expresses pride in Ron during the books.)

> Ron's *specialty* is his friends, particularly Harry, but it
> isn't anything he has done himself.
> At least that's what Ron seems to think, even though *I*
> think he's done plenty <g>.

I think his family realizes this too. Ron probably gets a lot more 
talking about at the dinner table than the rest of them put together. 
I mean, would you rather talk about Percy being a prefect, or the 
adventures of the trio? I think he hasn't realized yet that he is a 
valuable part of those adventures, and it's pretty common knowledge, 
and THAT lies at the root of his insecurity, rather than any actual 
neglect. 

> And looking at living with lots of siblings:
> while Harry may think it would be wonderful to be surrounded
> by all this love, it isn't always that way in reality.
> There is lots of teasing (not always the nice and loving
> kind, either) and competition.
> I could see lots of *being made fun of* going on, especially
> with Fred and George as older brothers.

But everyone gets that from Fred and George, no? When we're with the 
family, btw, their favourite target seems to be Percy, not Ron or 
Ginny. 

> So, while Ron's childhood was certainly much better than Harry's,
> it could have had it's own problems, too.
> Insecurities don't usually come out of nowhere.

I don't know about that. I think some people are born with an insecure 
bent. Recognition of this and parents trying to make up for it can go 
a long way to keeping them from being insecure. But ordinary, loving, 
supporting treatment will still leave them insecure. I have a brother, 
who tends to feel the same way as Ron, and really... I don't know 
where he gets off. He can't even see that he is given a latitude no 
other child is given. I think it's the same with Ron. 

> And concerning the wand issue, while it didn't cause any
> disasters until it broke, I could still see it not being
> helpful, either.

But there's no canon evidence for this. Just speculation.

Eileen




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Mon Feb  4 17:47:44 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 17:47:44 -0000
Subject: OT: Spanish inquisition
In-Reply-To: <a3hnhi+rdak@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3mhg0+hjj5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34628

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sing2wine" <bonnie.abrams at c...> wrote: 
> > Maybe I'm just too Jewish but perhaps wizards and witches are kind 
of 
> > like Conversos - Jews forced to convert to Christianity in 
> > Inquisition Spain (they share being burned alive for not doing 
so...).
> > They clandestinely kept their "old" practices while outwardly 
> > appearing to be observant Christians...It fits the wizarding world 
in 
> > more ways than one...

Jews were not burned alive in Spain, just expelled. (Not that that's 
very much better.) The problem I'd see with making the comparison, and 
then drawing a conclusion that the wizarding world still secretly 
practices an older religion, is that the vast majority of the 
Conversos' descendants were completely assimilated into the mainstream 
Christian Spanish population. St. Teresa of Avila was from a 3rd 
generation converso family, no?

Eileen




From john at walton.vu  Tue Feb  5 18:11:55 2002
From: john at walton.vu (John Walton)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 18:11:55 +0000
Subject: ADMIN: NO Off-Topic Posting On Main List
In-Reply-To: <a3mhg0+hjj5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <B885D0EA.3D64%john@walton.vu>

No: HPFGUIDX 34629

Greetings from the Magical Moderator Team.

PLEASE do not post OT messages to the Main List. We have an entire
HPFGU-OTChatter list for this at www.hpfgu.org.uk/otchatter

For those of you on webmail/special announcements who do not have the
following appended to the bottom of *every* message, here's a helpful
reminder of where various types of message should go:

Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material
from posts to which you're replying!

Is your message...
An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements.
Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups.
None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods --
MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com

Please note that anyone who cannot follow these simple pointers will be
placed on Moderated Status. This means that your messages must be approved
by a Moderator before being released for posting.

If you have any questions, please email the Moderators:
hpforgrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com.

Cheers,

--John, for the Moderator Team
________________________________

John Walton -- john at walton.vu

"Correction.  Last week's column mistakenly identified a source.  The
European Commission President is Romano Prodi, not Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Second Hand regrets the error." --Prague Post, Czech Republic.
________________________________




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Mon Feb  4 18:15:35 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 18:15:35 -0000
Subject: Only 3 magic schools?
In-Reply-To: <139.8cd8ebc.298f3ba6@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a3mj47+5qqu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34630

Originally I wrote:
> Are we further to guess from the Triwizard Tournament that there 
> are only 3 secondary schools worldwide? They represent the UK. 
> France, and the Eastern European groups, but conspicuously 
> missing are Americans, Orientals, Africans, or Latinos. Do these 
> populations have no magical schools?
> 
SpyGameFan answered:
> Just so you know, in the states the PC term for "Orientals" is 
> Asians. Secondly, nothing in the book says that these are the only 
> three. Since there is a book on Magical education on Europe there 
> must be more than three... or it is one darn short book.
> And why does everyone assume that just because JKR doesn't point 
> out the race of a character that he/she is Caucasian?

Personally, I admire JKR for her writing and would never call her non-
PC. I think she's quite skillful in her treatment of race issues of 
houseelves and giants and how they parallel race issues in the muggle 
world.

I hope we're not too PC sensitive in this group. I meant that there 
are large societies of wizards untouched in the Potterverse. From the 
HP Lexicon: 
"In book 5, we go into a whole new area, physically, an area you've 
never seen before, a magical world" (1)
This may be unknown schools and cultures.

uncmark





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Mon Feb  4 18:33:17 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 18:33:17 -0000
Subject: Suspicious Times and Victor Krum
Message-ID: <a3mk5e+bgnh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34631

Personally I like Victor Krum, but I wonder what Durmstrang girls are 
like that 15-year-old Hermione could sweep an international Quidditch 
star off his feet.

I was rereading Goblet of Fire where Sirius was telling the Potter 
trio about the Dark Times of the first Voldemort war. With LV's heavy 
use of the Imperius curse, suspicions ran deep of any strange wizard.

I remember how nervous people were after 9/11. Anyone who looked 
third world was suspect of being a terrorist and my workplace was on 
lockdown because some fool sent a package of baby powder through the 
mail.

As Lord Voldemort is on the move again, many of Hogwarts will surely 
suspect the prize student of a foreign Death Eater. If he did visit 
Hogwart's I could see Slytherin's saying something insensitive about 
him and Hermione. 

(I would like to see Draco calling H a 'mudblood' in front of Victor. 
What would a 7th year who can morph into a shark do to a git like 
Malfoy if he was angered?)

Here's hoping that JKR can treat the issues of a magic war without 
getting too dark. I doubt I'd enjoy Potter if battle killed half the 
student body. Some of the rumors are just TOO depressing!

Uncmark





From ladjables at yahoo.com  Mon Feb  4 20:35:29 2002
From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 20:35:29 -0000
Subject: musings about new location
In-Reply-To: <3C5EA748.1AF55CE9@kingwoodcable.com>
Message-ID: <a3mrah+p1tn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34632

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze <jdumas at k...> wrote:
> While musing on the other places we could possibly visit, I was 
> thinking about how far D is willing to go to defeat V. Harry 
> already does well DADA, so why not train him in the Dark arts as 
> well? I'm wondering if D is going to send Harry to Durmstrang for 
> part of the next book to get some special training that will help 
> empower him for the coming battle(s?). 


I think it would be wonderful to visit Durmstrang, but I don't see 
Dumbledore letting Harry out of his sight, and certainly not out of 
the country when Hogwarts has the reputation of being THE stronghold 
against Dark Forces.  Hogwarts is the only safe haven for Harry.  
Also, would it be consistent with Dumbledore's MO to allow Harry to 
become familiar with the Dark Arts as a means of defence?  I just 
don't see it, it wouldn't be his style to leave Harry in Karkaroff's 
clutches, (I assume that's where K fled to, Durmstrang).  If 
Dumbledore valued training in the Dark Arts at all, he would have 
included it in the curriculum at Hogwarts.  And yet he of all people, 
who defeated a Dark Wizard and also lived through Voldemort's trail 
of terror, does not emphasize Dark Arts training.  I think that shows 
where Dumbledore stands on the matter.

I personally would like to see the Ministry of Magic, I know, I know, 
it's not Knockturn Alley or under Lucius Malfoy's floorboards, but 
I'm really curious about wizard bureaucracy and how it functions 
under pressure.  I'm sure Fudge's behaviour is the catalyst Voldemort 
needs.  Plus Percy and Arthur work at MoM.  Actually, many people 
work there, and all those departments-the Departments of Mysteries, 
Magical Law Enforcement etc., how exactly do they work?  I was also 
wondering if there's a wizard fort, I guess Azkaban would qualify, 
but I predict it's going to fall to the dementors and Voldemort.  
Still, that's another place I would like to see.


Katze again: 
> I was also thinking a little more about the Secret-Keeper. How 
>likely is it that Lily is the one who performed the actual Fidelius 
>Charm. From what we know...Lily, James, Sirius, and Peter were the 
>only ones who knew who the SK was. I don't think D knew...he just 
>knew that Sirius was going into hiding. Anyway...If this is the case 
>(and I might be remembering D's part in this wrong), then the only 
>person that could handle the charm would be Lily.  

I think you've got it, I seem to remember Mr. Ollivander commenting 
that her wand was good for charm work, ergo, Lily's specialty was 
charms.  I'm sure this is going to be very important in future books, 
Lily's casting of the Fidelius charm, but for the life of me I can't 
think how.  To prove Wormtail's betrayal/vindicate Sirius? But then 
you would need to perform priori incantetem on her wand, and that's 
if it isn't in wand heaven...Nope, still can't figure it out.  
Ama the Thick




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Mon Feb  4 20:51:05 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 20:51:05 -0000
Subject: What Did Snape Do In GoF?/ Ghosts
In-Reply-To: <a3mbvu+rl87@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3ms7p+n7ah@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34633

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:
> However, it's not clear that Snape was supposed to know about 
> Quirrel's allegiance to Voldemort.  Perhaps Snape thought Quirrel 
> wanted the Philosopher's Stone for himself. Some here have 
speculated 
> the Voldy was hiding his presence from Snape, because Voldy was very 
> weak and was unsure of Snape's loyalty to him.  This sounds 
plausible 
> to me.  

Yes, this is a possibility, but Voldemort's knowledge that Snape saved 
Harry's life bothered me still till one day, it occured to me that 
Voldemort is in... well not a forgiving mood... but he is letting past 
offenders into the fold again. Many of his ex-DEs now work at the 
Ministry, many of them were probably involved in prosecuting and 
imprisoning practicers of the Dark Arts (Voldie's secret followers). 
He's forgiving them. Why not forgive Snape for what is essentially the 
same offense?


> This theory sounds right to me.  I wonder, though, why Nick can't 
just 
> detach his head?  I mean, Nick can change his clothes, so he's not 
> completely stuck in the form he had when he died.  And, the "quarter 
> inch of skin and sinew" holding his head on must be dust for 
centuries 
> by now.  Maybe Nick *could* detach his head, if he realized he had 
the 
> power to do so? 

I'd rather thought that clothes are accidentals to the ghost, while 
the head hanging on by an inch is an essential. However, I think there 
is a way Nick's business could be finished. Hermione just needs to 
look up where he's buried, and ceremonially remove the head from the 
body. :-) 
 
Eileen




From ritadarling at ivillage.com  Mon Feb  4 17:30:36 2002
From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (Rita F)
Date: 4 Feb 2002 09:30:36 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Did Snape Do In GoF?/ Snape and
    Krum/ Ghosts
Message-ID: <20020204173036.14444.cpmta@c006.snv.cp.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34634

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020204/10505db3/attachment.ksh>

From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com  Mon Feb  4 22:01:14 2002
From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 16:01:14 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: About Ron (not shipping)
References: <a4.2076e758.298d90c5@aol.com>
Message-ID: <3C5F04AA.42A4173A@kingwoodcable.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34635

NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com wrote:

> Also, by the
> forth book, three of the boys are adults with jobs of their own...certainly
> the Weasleys might have a bit more money for 'better' used items with only 4
> children in the house.  Which makes me wonder about Ginny...did she get new
> things or hand me down magical supplies too?

I think it's in CoS (Is this right?) where Ron and Ginny are both being
fitted in the second hand robe shop. I also had the impression that
whatever books the kids needed, if they hadn't been bought for an older
sibling, bought used books. That's just a guess though.

-Katze



From degroote at altavista.com  Mon Feb  4 21:59:30 2002
From: degroote at altavista.com (Vicky DeGroote)
Date: 4 Feb 2002 13:59:30 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] qualifiactions of teachers/Jewish Ravenclaws
Message-ID: <20020204215930.17498.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34636

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020204/da05facc/attachment.ksh>

From meboriqua at aol.com  Mon Feb  4 22:07:41 2002
From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 22:07:41 -0000
Subject: Harry's goal, Harry's resilience
In-Reply-To: <3C5EC921.29500.107F216B@localhost>
Message-ID: <a3n0nd+upqk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34637

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jo Jackson" <jo.jackson at b...> wrote:

> I speculate that the intensity of the bond in those first months of 
life is what has carried Harry through...and he remembers every other 
bit of positive attention he has ever recieved as a child...'you bowed 
to me in a shop once'.>

Yes - there has been much speculation about this and many people have 
said that Harry has most definitely retained the love he received from 
his parents while they were alive.  Others say that Lily somehow 
transferred even more love into Harry when she died, which resulted in 
an unusual sense of confidence and strong sense of right and wrong in 
Harry.  
 
> Some children with an abusive background however, turn into very 
special people.  The studies that are done on these people talk about 
the extraordinary quality of resilience they have...and resilience is 
Harry's dominant characteristic, IMO.>

He sure is resilient!  I also like to think that at a very young age 
Harry became aware of how horrible the Dursleys were, not just to him, 
but perhaps by observing others' reactions to them.   We know from SS 
that Dudley is the school bully and no one wants to get in the way of 
his gang.  Most kids don't like bullies; they fear bullies.  Uncle 
Vernon is also portrayed as a bit of a bully as he yells constantly 
while he is at work and then again at Harry while he is home.  Through 
seeing these things, Harry might have thought to himself that he 
didn't want to be like Dudley or his parents, and always reminded 
himself to be polite, to not whine and cry, to not be greedy, etc.  

 > Anyway, what does Harry want to do?>

My answer to this makes me feel a bit sad for Harry.  What I think 
Harry wants to do is fit in.  He wants to have friends and a family, 
to have fun at school and to play Quidditch.  I feel for him because 
he never asked for the burden of being "famous Harry Potter", yet he 
handles it graciously.  Aside from those things, I think Harry would 
like to help defeat Voldemort and to help make the wizarding world a 
less prejudiced, more tolerant one.  I don't think he thinks about the 
latter as much as he thinks about how great it would be to be a member 
of a nice big family like the Weasleys, though.

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




From bonnie.abrams at cwine.com  Mon Feb  4 20:14:08 2002
From: bonnie.abrams at cwine.com (sing2wine)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 20:14:08 -0000
Subject: Cosmetic Surgery in the HP World
Message-ID: <a3mq2g+ri8f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34638

In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
Magically altering robes does not, for some strange reason, 
work 
in the Harry Potter world, in the same way that cosmetic surgery 
doesn't seem to exist anywhere. I don't think JKR thought out 
that one.

I questioned this (the cosmetic surgery part..) in my first post 
about Moody's nose and leg. I pointed out the bones growing back in 
Harry's arm in CoS. But a simpler example of cosmetic surgery in the 
HP world is Hermione's teeth in GoF. After she was restored to having 
human instead of rodent teeth - she had the nurse shorten them 
slightly to make her more attractive - wouldn't that constitute 
cosmetic surgery?

Bonnie  /  sing2wine







From siskiou at earthlink.net  Mon Feb  4 20:11:20 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 12:11:20 -0800
Subject: Percy (was About Ron (not shipping))
In-Reply-To: <a3mfn7+9t3u@eGroups.com>
References: <a3mfn7+9t3u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <120441955137.20020204121120@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34639


Hi,

Monday, February 04, 2002, 9:17:27 AM, lucky_kari wrote:


>> 
>> But it has to come from somewhere.

> You didn't adress my example of Percy, did you? :-)

No, I didn't.
I've only read the books (1,2 and half of 3) once, and as I
said, I am not as observant on the first read.

Meaning, I'll have to go back and "research" to talk about
Percy <g>.

But I still wanted to join into the discussion and hope
that's okay!

>  Would you say his 
> insecurity comes from anywhere?

Of course. After all, he too has older brothers and younger
ones who *he* might feel get more than their share of
attention.

But he also has his niche, which may not be appreciated by
Fred and George, but is by his mother, at least, and I think
also Ron.

> family. If I had to guess, I would peg him as the most likely to share 
> Ron's anger about being poor. (And, he's the only Weasley who 
> expresses pride in Ron during the books.)

Quite possible.

And it's not only Percy who gets teased by the twins, Ron does get his
share (and probably the rest of the family, too).

> I think his family realizes this too. Ron probably gets a lot more 
> talking about at the dinner table than the rest of them put together. 
> I mean, would you rather talk about Percy being a prefect, or the 
> adventures of the trio? I think he hasn't realized yet that he is a 
> valuable part of those adventures, and it's pretty common knowledge, 
> and THAT lies at the root of his insecurity, rather than any actual 
> neglect.

But this is also just speculation, yes? <g>

We don't see Ron's mom pay much attention to him, especially
when Harry is around. And while Harry definitely needs
loving attention, it may still feel hurtful to the Weasley
kids.
The older ones may have more insight into why their mother
might be doing this, but the younger ones probably don't,
yet.


> I have a brother,
> who tends to feel the same way as Ron, and really... I don't know 
> where he gets off. He can't even see that he is given a latitude no 
> other child is given. I think it's the same with Ron.

What the latitude that Ron is given, that the rest of his
siblings aren't?

> But there's no canon evidence for this. Just speculation.

Isn't speculation what we do a lot here? :)
It's half the fun.

And there is at least *some* canon to support this
speculation.
It's mentioned that the wand chooses the wizard, and this
didn't happen with Ron.

And just to clarify: I don't think Ron is a poor, abused and
neglected child (that's Harry), but I also don't think he
had the perfect childhood that sometimes is perceived to
automatically come along with growing up in a large family.

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





From huntleyl at mssm.org  Mon Feb  4 21:33:10 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 16:33:10 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Did Snape Do In GoF?
References: <20020204173036.14444.cpmta@c006.snv.cp.net>
Message-ID: <003b01c1adc3$8d5a0700$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 34640

Rita said:
> But, at the end of GoF, Voldemort said something along the lines of, one
of them he > believes he has left forever and of course will be killed (and
we assume this is Snape).  But, > he *believes* he has left forever, which
gives the idea that he isn't totally convinced.  And  > Snape has good
reason for not showing up at the DE reunion--nobody can apparate or     >
disapparate on Hogwarts grounds, so he *could* go groveling back to
Voldemort with that > excuse and continue to be a spy for Dumbledore.

    Yes, but how thick would V have to be to believe this?  I admit, he has
shown a certain lack of...*common sense* in the past, but, seriously, to
accept any excuses on Snape's part would be plain stupid.  There is simply
too much evidence against Snape for V to let him back in...UNLESS *do dee
do* V plans to USE Snape.  Say, pretend to trust the man and feed him
misinformation and the like.  I can really see V being able to use this to
his advantage when the water gets really hot in the later books.  He could
tell Snape that - for example -mayonnaise was his secret weakness.  So Harry
and the crew all show up at V's secret hideout ready to cream him with
mayo...but V's ready for them and their tasty white sandwich spread and
wipes them all out. (reminder:  that was JUST an example)

Oh, yes.  BTW, I am a newbie.  Please be gentle.  Also, I'm sorry if the
quoted part has it's >'s all in the wrong places..

laura







From ck32976 at yahoo.com  Mon Feb  4 22:11:40 2002
From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 22:11:40 -0000
Subject: A Certain Room
In-Reply-To: <a3hlon+6psv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3n0us+fnn9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34641

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrwilkens" <wilke013 at g...> wrote:
> 
> If you could travel to Hogwarts for an hour, what would you do 
there? 
> 
>   Go straight into a certain room, mentioned in book four which has 
certain magical properties Harry
>   hasn't discovered yet! 
> 
> http://www.comicrelief.com/harrysbooks/pages/transcript2.shtml
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> JRW

Hi and welcome!

Although I would love to have a bathroom like the prefects' bathroom, 
and the anteroom theory is one that I haven't thought of, what about 
that mysterious room that Dumbledore found with all of the chamber 
pots? I know that it is probably unlikely, but I like the idea.  It 
was probably mentioned as another insight to Dumbledore's 
unconventional sense of humor, though.  I realize that this is a very 
short post, but that is really all I have to say on the 
matter...Sorry.


Carrie





From moongirlk at yahoo.com  Mon Feb  4 22:32:33 2002
From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 22:32:33 -0000
Subject: A Certain Room
In-Reply-To: <20020202232730.27238.qmail@web14008.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a3n261+psq5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34642

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Mary Shearer <marybear82 at y...> wrote:

> My other guess would be the antechamber off the great
> hall.  We see the room twice, but briefly in GoF. 
> First, when the champions gather there for
> instructions immediately following the goblet's
> decision, and later when the families come to greet
> them before the third task.  Bill Weasley looks around
> the room fondly - as though it is special to him - and
> says, "It's great being back here!"  Then Violet, the
> fat lady's friend winks at him from her portrait on
> the wall.  Why would he choose that room in which to
> wax nostalgic? Seems to me he'd say that out in the
> impressive great hall, or in the Gryffindor common
> room, or any number of other places in which memories
> are made - but a little-used room off the dining hall?
>  I dunno - just a guess, but maybe that room is
> significant somehow. 

Good thought Mary - I was thinking prefect's bathroom too (I'd love 
to soak awhile in all those bubbles!), but this room does appear to 
have some sort of significance to Bill at least.  And I was 
thinking... in PS/SS the kids are lead into a room off the Great Hall 
before the sorting - is this the same room?  If so it would at least 
explain how Bill knew the room and how Violet knew Bill (or maybe Vi 
just recognizes a hottie when she sees one and was flirting).  

kimberly
who thinks Violet's got good taste




From tanie_05 at hotmail.com  Mon Feb  4 23:06:18 2002
From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 23:06:18 -0000
Subject: musings about new location
In-Reply-To: <3C5EA748.1AF55CE9@kingwoodcable.com>
Message-ID: <a3n45a+mvjg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34643

Katze wrote:
> I was also thinking a little more about the Secret-Keeper. How 
likely is
> it that Lily is the one who performed the actual Fidelius Charm. 
From
> what we know...Lily, James, Sirius, and Peter were the only ones who
> knew who the SK was. I don't think D knew...he just knew that 
Sirius was
> going into hiding. Anyway...If this is the case (and I might be
> remembering D's part in this wrong), then the only person that could
> handle the charm would be Lily. 

Well, Dumbledore did know. He even offered to be the Potter's Secret 
Keeper instead of Sirius, but James insisted on using Sirius. 

"'Naturally,' said Professor McGonagall. 'James Potter told 
Dumbledore that Black would die rather than tell where they were, 
that Black was planning on going into hiding himself...and yet, 
Dumbledore remained worried. I remember him offering to be the 
Potters' Secret Keeper himself.'"

But yes, I can believe Lily did the Fidelius Charm herself, after 
all, her wand was good at charms.

-Kyrstyne





From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Mon Feb  4 23:49:11 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 23:49:11 -0000
Subject: Cosmetic Surgery in the HP World
In-Reply-To: <a3mq2g+ri8f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3n6ln+dagg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34644

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sing2wine" <bonnie.abrams at c...> wrote:
> I pointed out the bones growing back in Harry's arm in CoS. But a 
> simpler example of cosmetic surgery in the HP world is Hermione's 
> teeth in GoF. After she was restored to having human instead of 
> rodent teeth - she had the nurse shorten them slightly to make her 
> more attractive - wouldn't that constitute cosmetic surgery?

This does in fact seem to be similar to Harry's bones being grown 
back (although teeth are made of a different material than bones).  
Teeth are more visible than bones, of course, so one could view this 
as "cosmetic" work, except that it was also required for Hermione to 
be able to function, so if we were talking about whether someone's 
insurance would pay for it, I definitely think it would be deemed 
necessary and not merely "cosmetic."  (If you need rhinoplasty for a 
deviated septum, you can also get your nose "cosmetically improved" 
at the same time, and because the original impetus for the surgery 
was medical, the insurance will pay.)

Since this and the seemingly permanent transfiguration of Barty 
Crouch, Sr.'s corpse into a bone were both possible, perhaps the 
running theme here is that material such as bones and teeth can be 
permanently transfigured, but things like Moody's nose cannot 
(skin/flesh).  And by extension, non-teeth/bone things like clothes 
could also not be transfigured permanently.  (Although you'd think 
temporary transfiguration WOULD be possible, and therefore Ron could 
have done something with his shabby robes that would at least have 
lasted long enough for him to go to the Yule Ball.)  

Still, I think JKR is somewhat inconsistent about this; after all, 
Crouch, Jr. may have stripped his father's body before transfiguring 
it (and it still had the flesh on it, not being a mere skeleton 
yet), but I'm rather doubtful of that, which would mean his dad's 
clothes were transfigured along with the rest of him.

--Barb





From Rosenatti at aol.com  Mon Feb  4 23:41:48 2002
From: Rosenatti at aol.com (rosenatti)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 23:41:48 -0000
Subject: What Did Snape Do In GoF?
In-Reply-To: <003b01c1adc3$8d5a0700$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a3n67s+bfdc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34645

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" <huntleyl at m...> wrote:
> seriously, to
> accept any excuses on Snape's part would be plain stupid.  There is 
simply
> too much evidence against Snape for V to let him back in...UNLESS 
*do dee
> do* V plans to USE Snape.  

Well, Voldie has a tendency to suffer convenient brain death whenever 
the plot demands it (example a: his Scooby-Doo tendency to waste time 
telling Harry every little notion in his bald head before attempting 
to kill the kid -- and then going about it in a singularly protracted 
and implausible manner). 

Assuming he keeps what's left of his wits, it's possible that 
Voldemort will attempt to use Snape to spread misinformation. But 
shouldn't Snape and Dumbledore be aware of this possibility? Either 
way, for the Byronic hero of the Good Ship L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. to 
return to the DEs, someone -- Snape, Dumbledore, V. -- is going to 
have to play the fool.

And here's something I've wondered about, and apologies ahead of time 
if it's already been discussed: Karkaroff knows Snape worked for 
Dumbledore during V.'s first reign, becuase he was in court when 
Dumbledore blew his trusty spy's cover. Karkaroff has already shown 
he has no problem naming names to save his own skin, so we can expect 
him to rat on Snape should his former DE buddies catch up with him 
and decide to settle scores. So, even if V. has another brain burp 
and accepts Snape back, it probably won't be for long... not with 
friend Igor out there playing the loose cannon.

My poor Snape. Doomed, doomed. 

"rosenatti" 




From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com  Tue Feb  5 00:30:00 2002
From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 18:30:00 -0600
Subject: Secret - Keeper
References: <a3n45a+mvjg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C5F2788.B73E4548@kingwoodcable.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34646

tanie_05 wrote:

> Well, Dumbledore did know. He even offered to be the Potter's Secret
> Keeper instead of Sirius, but James insisted on using Sirius.

Yes, D did offer to be the SK instead of Sirius, but was he aware of
James' decision to change to Peter on Sirius' recommendation? Did D know
that Peter was the actual SK? I would think he didn't know because he
would've been able to get Sirius off had he known. Perhaps I didn't
clarify my question enough the first time around.

> 
> "'Naturally,' said Professor McGonagall. 'James Potter told
> Dumbledore that Black would die rather than tell where they were,
> that Black was planning on going into hiding himself...and yet,
> Dumbledore remained worried. I remember him offering to be the
> Potters' Secret Keeper himself.'"

I think this reference must be referring to the time before they changed
to Peter. Or perhaps I'm confused...

-Katze



From cindysphynx at home.com  Tue Feb  5 00:28:18 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 00:28:18 -0000
Subject: What Did Snape Do In GoF?
In-Reply-To: <a3n67s+bfdc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3n8v2+pla7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34647

Rosenatti wrote:

 
> Well, Voldie has a tendency to suffer convenient brain death 
whenever 
> the plot demands it (example a: his Scooby-Doo tendency to waste 
time 
> telling Harry every little notion in his bald head before 
attempting 
> to kill the kid -- and then going about it in a singularly 
protracted 
> and implausible manner). 

I'd have to admit that Voldemort was a numb-skull of a villian in 
PS/SS ("his mother's protection -- I forgot") and in CoS ("phoenix 
tears -- I forgot").  Definitely not ready for prime time.

But Voldemort studied up for GoF, and it showed.  I thought his 
behavior in the graveyard was reasonable, as he didn't have any 
memory lapses that time.  Sure, he chatted up the DEs before killing 
Harry, but there was no hurry.  Sure, he could have blasted Harry 
right on his father's grave, but where's the fun in that?  He had to 
prove that he was back and badder than ever, and it was going to be 
quite a re-birthing if Priori Incantantem hadn't intervened and 
messed everything up.  The trend line has Voldemort getting better 
and better with every . . . embarrassing defeat, so Voldemort might 
even win the battles in OoP.

Rosenatti again:

> Assuming he keeps what's left of his wits, it's possible that 
> Voldemort will attempt to use Snape to spread misinformation. But 
> shouldn't Snape and Dumbledore be aware of this possibility? Either 
> way, for the Byronic hero of the Good Ship L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. to 
> return to the DEs, someone -- Snape, Dumbledore, V. -- is going to 
> have to play the fool.
> 

Mmmm, not necessarily.  I would think that Snape can go back to 
Voldemort by saying that he has been spying for Voldemort all along.  
Snape will need to embellish the facts a bit ("How did you expect me 
to come to the graveyard -- you know I can't apparate off the 
Hogwarts grounds, and it would have blown my cover had I been seen 
sprinting off the grounds in the middle of the Third Task").  As for 
Dumbledore's outing Snape in the Pensieve, Snape can just say this is 
proof of how well he has managed to position himself in Dumbledore's 
camp -- the old man has no clue that Snape is still working for the 
DEs.  

If Snape plays his cards right, I think he can continue to spy for 
Dumbledore without suffering even one Cruciatus Curse, to my bitter 
disappointment.

Rosenatti again:

>Karkaroff knows Snape worked for 
> Dumbledore during V.'s first reign, becuase he was in court when 
> Dumbledore blew his trusty spy's cover. Karkaroff has already shown 
> he has no problem naming names to save his own skin, so we can 
expect 
> him to rat on Snape should his former DE buddies catch up with him 
> and decide to settle scores. So, even if V. has another brain burp 
> and accepts Snape back, it probably won't be for long... not with 
> friend Igor out there playing the loose cannon.

Poor Igor.  He's the Rodney Dangerfield of the HP books -- he gets no 
respect at all.  He needs someone to defend him, someone to explain 
why he did what he did.  You know, lots of people have weak chins, 
strained smiles and yellow teeth, but that doesn't make them all bad.

Why is it that people are willing to forgive Snape for making the bad 
decision of becoming a DE, but they are so hard on my little Igor?  
Igor made a mistake, and then he turned on his buddies by naming 
names.  Snape made a mistake, and then he turned on his buddies, 
probably by naming names, passing information, and possibly even 
ratting out his old Slytherin friends.  At least with Karkaroff, we 
don't know whether the people he ratted out were old school chums.  

I think I'm ready to cut Igor a break, provided he agrees to ditch 
the furs.

Cindy (feeling charitable toward everyone but Snape)




From cindysphynx at home.com  Tue Feb  5 00:42:23 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 00:42:23 -0000
Subject: The Do's and Don'ts of Being a Good Character
Message-ID: <a3n9pf+8r22@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34648

Over the last few days, there have been several discussions about 
whether the "good characters" did the right thing in the HP books.  
Would Sirius have killed Peter right there in the street, and would 
that have been OK?  Would or should Sirius have performed some other 
sort of curse?  Would Dumbledore have killed Peter in the Shrieking 
Shack?  Is it OK that Lupin and Sirius would have killed Peter?  Is 
it OK for Hagrid to slam Karkaroff into a tree?  Is it OK for the 
twins and the trio to curse Draco, Crabbe and Goyle for saying 
something they don't like?  There are probably other examples of this.

I find it difficult to answer questions like this in any kind of 
consistent way.  When should the Good characters be permitted to 
deviate from conventions of fair play in the wizarding world?  How is 
it that an author can have her Good characters behave in these 
morally questionable ways and still remain Good in the readers' minds?

Any opinions?

Cindy




From meboriqua at aol.com  Tue Feb  5 01:40:34 2002
From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 01:40:34 -0000
Subject: The Do's and Don'ts of Being a Good Character
In-Reply-To: <a3n9pf+8r22@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3nd6i+6gor@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34649

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

 >When should the Good characters be permitted to deviate from 
conventions of fair play in the wizarding world?  How is it that an 
author can have her Good characters behave in these morally 
questionable ways and still remain Good in the readers' minds?>

Those are tough questions, Cindy.  I think one thing we need to keep 
in mind is the vicarious satisfaction we as readers can experience 
when we read about Harry getting the best of Draco or Snape being 
embarrassed by the Marauder's Map.  I must admit that one of my 
favorite scenes in GoF was when Fred and George dropped candies all 
over the floor and pretended to pick them up.  I loved knowing that 
any moment, Dudley the Greedy would be getting a mouthful of something 
nasty.  In reality I can't imagine laughing at seeing anyone suffering 
the way Dudley did, but I just couldn't feel bad for him in his 
fictional world.  What I mean by all of this babble here is that I 
enjoy seeing or reading some good ass-kicking of some character who I 
find deplorable.  In real life, I am no one's ass-kicker, and believe 
me, there are times when I wish I could give a student a good slap (or 
at least tell them to shut the f*** up).  Instead, I must always be 
the one to demonstrate restraint and diplomacy.  Phooey.

I can think of several other examples of this, like when Hermione 
slaps Draco across the face in PoA, or when Harry throws mud at Draco 
and his cronies, also in PoA.  In reality, those are not acceptable 
behaviors, but I sure loved reading them!

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




From mrgrrrargh at aol.com  Tue Feb  5 01:19:15 2002
From: mrgrrrargh at aol.com (mrgrrrargh at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 20:19:15 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What happens to the clothes?
Message-ID: <130.8d2ab2a.29908d13@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34650

Barb:


> but I'm rather doubtful of that, which would mean his dad's 
> clothes were transfigured along with the rest of him.
> 
> --Barb

Well, Petigrew and Minerva both transform with their clothes as did 
MalfoyFerret, I think clothes (and wands) stay with ya when you change forms.

-SpyGameFan


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





From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Tue Feb  5 01:40:34 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 01:40:34 -0000
Subject: Wizard Medicine
In-Reply-To: <a3mq2g+ri8f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3nd6i+6tvg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34651

Wizard medicine doesn't seem to have kept up with Wizard cooking 
and transportation.  Mrs. Crouch died of cancer and Mrs Riddle died 
in childbirth.  You'd think a midwitch would have done an accio when
trouble started. (Yes, yes, not that simple, I know.) Seems a medical 
version accio would also have taken care of Mrs. Crouch's cancers,
 too.

Tex






From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Tue Feb  5 01:57:50 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 01:57:50 -0000
Subject: The Do's and Don'ts of Being a Good Character
In-Reply-To: <a3n9pf+8r22@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3ne6u+6h5g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34652

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> Over the last few days, there have been several discussions about 
> whether the "good characters" did the right thing in the HP books.  
> Would Sirius have killed Peter right there in the street, and would 
> that have been OK?  Would or should Sirius have performed some other 
> sort of curse?  Would Dumbledore have killed Peter in the Shrieking 
> Shack?  Is it OK that Lupin and Sirius would have killed Peter?  Is 
> it OK for Hagrid to slam Karkaroff into a tree?  Is it OK for the 
> twins and the trio to curse Draco, Crabbe and Goyle for saying 
> something they don't like?  There are probably other examples of this.
> 
> I find it difficult to answer questions like this in any kind of 
> consistent way.  When should the Good characters be permitted to 
> deviate from conventions of fair play in the wizarding world?  How is 
> it that an author can have her Good characters behave in these 
> morally questionable ways and still remain Good in the readers' minds?
> 
> Any opinions?
> 
I don't think it's fair to get all worked up about the less-than-noble
things our beloved characters do and conclude that they can't be Good
because they did thus and so, e.g.,  Sirius is bad because he almost
killed Snape (never mind that he risked the dementor's kiss to escape
from Azkaban to protect Harry), Lupin is bad because he didn't take
his potion or tell Dumbledore about the animagi (never mind that he
helped his classes overcome their worst fears and ran to the Trio's
aid when he saw they were with Sirius and Peter), Snape is bad because
he was a DE (never mind that he risked his life to spy for the Good
side and probably will again), Hagrid is bad because he exercises poor
judgment, exposing kids to dangerous animals (never mind that he has a
heart of gold). 

These characters, like real people, have to be accepted warts and all.
 What makes characters in the Potterverse Good is not a lack of
character flaws or bad behavior but their ultimate
allegiances--Dumbledore or Voldemort, freedom or bondage, compassion
or bigotry, Good or Evil.  Their core motivations are what matter, not
their peripheral mistakes.  

Furthermore, I think that the "conventions of fair play in the
wizarding world" aren?t intended to be very politically correct.  They
don't operate in a litigious society, so it's no big deal to chuck a
hex at someone who's bothering you (probably because somehow it can be
made all better?no harm, no foul) or slam someone into a tree to make
a point. Not only that, but characters in a fictional world exist to
entertain, and characters that behave as if they'd passed a
sensitivity-training course with flying colors aren't so entertaining.

If we don't accept the flaws of the Good people, the only other course
is to conclude that the Harry Potter series truly is evil because it
models bad behavior.  Wanna go there?  I don't.

--Dicentra, whose core motivations are usually good even if her
actions frequently don't reflect that





From Zarleycat at aol.com  Tue Feb  5 01:58:31 2002
From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 01:58:31 -0000
Subject: Snapers or Sirists (was Defending Snape, Dissing Sirius)
In-Reply-To: <a3lg4i+sp83@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3ne87+10tpa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34653

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rosenatti" <Rosenatti at a...> wrote:

 
> I agree; I also feel a rant coming on. As far as I'm concerned, 
> Sirius' implied heroic status is suspect until he shows some 
modicum 
> of regret for nearly killing another teenager as a "prank" during 
his 
> student days. And that's something he should have done long before 
he 
> wound up in Azkaban. In the Muggle world, his "prank," without 
James' 
> intervention, would have landed him in prison (or reform school) on 
> charges of second-degree murder or manslaughter. If he doesn't 
> acknowledge his own potentially criminal stupidity just because he 
> doesn't like Snape (what, he assumes it's fine to kill kids he 
finds 
> annoying? what a great message to pass on to his impressionable 
> godson), then he's just your garden-variety sociopath. Maybe Snape 
is 
> one, as well, but canon implies that he's actively tried to rectify 
> his greatest mistake -- becoming a DE -- and JKR has never 
disguised 
> his psychological shortcomings. Sirius, on the other hand, has been 
> painted as a candidate for sainthood and never even been asked to 
> apologize to Snape, the kid he tried to kill -- or if he has, he's 
> failed to do it. And people wonder why Snape gets so irrational 
> around Black? Geez.


Don't you all think it interesting that most Snape fans can't seem to 
cut Sirius any slack, and most Sirius fans only want to give Snape 
enough rope with which to hang him? If someone bashes one "S-man", 
the defense of that character almost always includes an attack on the 
other "S-man."

Plus, whether you're a Snaper, a Sirist or neither, Sirius has not 
has nearly as much exposure as Snape.  We have been given much more 
day-to-day glimpses of Snape and how he behaves.  We have all sorts 
of incidents to refer to, either show how awful Snape is or how, 
underneath that gruff exterior, beats the heart of a maligned, 
misunderstood character who has faced terrible trials and ultimately 
came down on the side of Good/Light or whatever you want to call it.

On the other hand, we have had only three scenes in which Sirius 
plays an active role.  By that I mean we see him, hear him speak and 
interact with others.  We're not relying exclusively on second hand 
information or three-line notes written to Harry.  We see Sirius in 
the Shrieking Shack, in the cave with the Trio in GoF and with Harry 
in Dumbledore's office and in the hospital after the Triwizard 
Tournament. 

Now, Sirius was a tad off the beam in the Shrieking Shack, but most 
of the other people in the room were not at their best, either. And, 
in the other two scenes, I don't think Sirius comes across as 
deranged, idiotic, uncaring, or irresponsible.  

I do find it interesting that people will come to Snape's defense and 
cut him major slack regarding his DE status because ultimately he 
rejects that.  And this is without knowing what potentially horrible 
things he may have done.  But, the fact that he came back to the good 
side is seen as him having recognized the error of his ways and 
that's good enough to forgive him for any past transgressions.  

I will once again rant about "The Prank."  People seem to assume that 
Sirius wanted to kill Snape.  The only evidence we have in canon to 
support that was Snape's statement to Dumbledore in PoA about "Sirius 
Black showed himself capable of murder at the age of sixteen." I do 
believe that Snape thinks Sirius wanted to kill him.  But, that is 
not proof of Sirius' intent.

I am not trying to excuse Sirius' actions.  They could have led to 
injury or death as well as dire consequences to Remus, had the 
werewolf done any damage.  They did not.  Did anyone die?  No.  Was 
anyone serverely injured? No. Was Remus "outed" by this? No. Should 
Sirius have received servere punishment?  Yes.  Did he?  We don't 
know. Did Sirius apologize to Snape? To Lupin?  To James? We don't 
know. 

So, to sum up, if we find out in future books that Snape did some 
truly horrible things during his DE days, will people still feel he 
deserves forgiveness because he has worked to rectify his mistakes?  
And, by the same token, if we hear Sirius apologize to Snape (and 
mean it) will people put "The Prank" to rest?

Marianne, who will be really annoyed if either Snape or Sirius buys 
the farm in the upcoming books



 




From Zarleycat at aol.com  Tue Feb  5 02:18:41 2002
From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 02:18:41 -0000
Subject: The Do's and Don'ts of Being a Good Character
In-Reply-To: <a3n9pf+8r22@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3nfe1+bio2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34654

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> 
> I find it difficult to answer questions like this in any kind of 
> consistent way.  When should the Good characters be permitted to 
> deviate from conventions of fair play in the wizarding world?  How 
is 
> it that an author can have her Good characters behave in these 
> morally questionable ways and still remain Good in the readers' 
minds?

In a number of cases, the Good characters are seen as responding to 
provocation by Bad characters.  It's not that the Good character has 
decided to temporarily throw morality out the window and act in 
unacceptable ways.  The Good character is good, we know that, we've 
been shown that they're good, we're on their side, and we can't help 
but root for them to get the better of their antagonists, even if we 
ourselves couldn't imagine taking the same kind of actions in our own 
lives.  

And, if we didn't have characters who had some ambiguity in their 
Goodness, we'd never have all of our lively Snape/Sirius/Remus 
debates.  What a sad day that would be!

Marianne




From anmsmom333 at cs.com  Tue Feb  5 03:45:08 2002
From: anmsmom333 at cs.com (anmsmom333)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 03:45:08 -0000
Subject: Snapers or Sirists
In-Reply-To: <a3ne87+10tpa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3nkg4+fg6r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34655

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" <Zarleycat at a...> wrote:
> I do find it interesting that people will come to Snape's defense
and cut him major slack regarding his DE status because ultimately he 
> rejects that.  And this is without knowing what potentially
horrible 
> things he may have done.  But, the fact that he came back to the
good 
> side is seen as him having recognized the error of his ways and 
> that's good enough to forgive him for any past transgressions.  
> 
> I will once again rant about "The Prank."  People seem to assume
that 
> Sirius wanted to kill Snape.  The only evidence we have in canon to 
> support that was Snape's statement to Dumbledore in PoA about
"Sirius 
> Black showed himself capable of murder at the age of sixteen." I do 
> believe that Snape thinks Sirius wanted to kill him.  But, that is 
> not proof of Sirius' intent.
> 
> I am not trying to excuse Sirius' actions.  They could have led to 
> injury or death as well as dire consequences to Remus, had the 
> werewolf done any damage.  They did not.  Did anyone die?  No.  Was 
> anyone serverely injured? No. Was Remus "outed" by this? No. Should 
> Sirius have received servere punishment?  Yes.  Did he?  We don't 
> know. Did Sirius apologize to Snape? To Lupin?  To James? We don't 
> know. 
> 
> So, to sum up, if we find out in future books that Snape did some 
> truly horrible things during his DE days, will people still feel he 
> deserves forgiveness because he has worked to rectify his mistakes?
 
> And, by the same token, if we hear Sirius apologize to Snape (and 
> mean it) will people put "The Prank" to rest?
> 
> Marianne, who will be really annoyed if either Snape or Sirius buys 
> the farm in the upcoming books

This is my first post though I have been lurking for 2 and a half
months and enjoying all the discussions. However, I cannot pass up
this opportunity. 
I am probably one of the rare HP fans who loves both Sirius AND Snape.
In fact, Sirius, Remus and Severus are my favorites (in that order).
Yes, Sirius is a tad impulsive and has a temper but he also is kind
hearted (in POA he gets all choked up and teary eyed when explaining
what happened to James and Lily and in GOF I think he shows true
concern for Harry's welfare on numerous occassions as well as is the
first "grownup" who does not belittle the trio and actually explains
things other grownups think they are "too young to understand."). 
As for "the prank", as Marianne points out (quite well I might add) -
we do not know if Sirius apologised or if he was punished and for that
matter we do not know if the intent was to kill or injure. IMO there
is more to the story than "sneaking around, trying to find out what we
were up to..." Though there is no canon evidence I always imagined
they (Sirius and Snape) liked the same girl (not Lily Evans but
another)and that was why the trick was played. Not to kill or injure
but to show what a "chicken" he was. 
Boys I hung around in high school were always playing "tricks" (I was
their Hermione-like conscience whose logic and reason sometimes went
unnoticed) none like this but there was an incident where they wanted
to mess up something another club built and "accidently" hurt a member
of that club. Needless to say they spent 3 days at home and temporary
suspension from the football team and though I had no prior knowledge
I had to endure repeated beratement from the other club about those
boys not being punished. But it is just IMO here that there is more
to this prank story. But I figure, if I love both "S-men" maybe, just
maybe...Besides, though there is no canon evidence to support my
theory...there is no canon evidence to prove Sirius meant to really
"physically hurt" Severus. 
And to defend my dear Sirius in the Shrieking Shack, remember he just
spent 12 years in a horrid prison which drives most folks insane so he
is definitely suffering from some post tramatic stress disorder and
might say and do rather rash things. I would not be surprised at all
if he has horrendous nightmares as well. How I would love to comfort
him. (grin)
As for Severus, well I think the reason I like him is the mystery
behind the man. He seems blunt and cold to students on many
occassions, yet sometimes there is subtle humor in his statements. I
really think he is the typical "bad boy who is really a good boy deep
down inside". And yes I do cut him some slack about the DE thing. He
He does afterall save Harry in PS/SS from falling to his death. If he
truely hated him would he have done so? IMO Severus picks on Harry
because he looks like James and that reminds him of MWPP which reminds
him of his school days and the infamous "prank".
On a side note - the comments in GOF about who is LV talking about
with the DE - IMO it is as follows: Karkaroff is the one who "left
forever" and will be killed, Crouch Jr is the "faithful servant" and
Severus is the "coward who will pay". And that is why D says "Severus,
you know what I must ask you to do." and Severus agrees but pales
because he knows he has to visit LV and take his punishment for "being
late to the meeting" and hope LV doesn't read his true intent of
supporting D and the "old crowd". So I do think Severus is on D's
side.
Sorry, this is so long. And Marianne, I will not only be annoyed if
either "S-man" dies but severely heartbroken.

Theresa (who wholeheartily agrees with Sirius fans that he is dead
sexy and would run off with him in a heartbeat but is still intrigued
by Severus but would only "be friends" with him.)




From boggles at earthlink.net  Tue Feb  5 04:06:43 2002
From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:06:43 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Defending Snape, Wizarding Schools, and Wizard
 Medicine
In-Reply-To: <a3lg4i+sp83@eGroups.com>
References: <a3lg4i+sp83@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <f0501040db8850157c17a@[199.174.15.41]>

No: HPFGUIDX 34656

At 8:18 AM +0000 2/4/02, rosenatti wrote:
>--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:
>>Snape came through this
>>  smelling like a rose. (Other than his hair, which presumably smells
>>  like unwashed hair.) 
>
>Now, now. We don't actually know why Snape's hair is perpetually so
>well-oiled. He could well be using some sweet-smelling Dapper Dan
>product to give his locks that slimy, patent-leather sheen.

I've always imagined it like Harry's haircut growing back in the 
night: Severus washes his hair thoroughly every night, with the same 
scouring soap he cleans his cauldrons with, but an hour later his 
ineffable nature has asserted itself through his natural magic and 
it's greasy enough to leave the pillowcase translucent.  (Perhaps he 
stalks the night because it's easier than cleaning the sheets every 
morning . . .)


At 9:39 PM +0000 2/3/02, uncmark wrote:
>
>Are we further to guess from the Triwizard Tournament that there are
>only 3 secondary schools worldwide?

We know there's one in Brazil, from the forementioned Weasley 
penfriend.  The existence of competitive Quidditch teams from the 
world 'round, as mentioned in _Quidditch Through the Ages_, suggests 
that secondary school level Quiddich is played in most countries, 
which would imply the existence of such schools.


At 1:40 AM +0000 2/5/02, tex23236 wrote:
>Wizard medicine doesn't seem to have kept up with Wizard cooking
>and transportation.

Who needs transportation when you can Apparate?  And those who don't 
Apparate have brooms, Portkeys, and the Floo network.

>Mrs. Crouch died of cancer

Where does it say that?  Crouch Jr. only says she was dying, not what 
of.  At any rate, she died in Azkaban, far from any treatment at all, 
wizard or Muggle.

>and Mrs Riddle died
>in childbirth.

In a Muggle Hospital around the 1930s.  If she'd been in a wizarding 
hospital, Riddle wouldn't have ended up in a Muggle orphanage.

>You'd think a midwitch would have done an accio when
>trouble started. (Yes, yes, not that simple, I know.) Seems a medical
>version accio would also have taken care of Mrs. Crouch's cancers,
>  too.

I'm not at all sure one can Accio through skin; if you could, what's 
to stop a Death Eater from accio'ing your heart from your chest?

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



From the_little_catboy at yahoo.ca  Tue Feb  5 04:52:35 2002
From: the_little_catboy at yahoo.ca (Caleb Williamson)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 23:52:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snapers or Sirists
In-Reply-To: <a3nkg4+fg6r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020205045235.47851.qmail@web11402.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34657

  I think cutting Snape some slack for being a DE,
because everybody makes mistakes in there life. But
after saying that I must say this. Snapers you should
take a look hard look at Snape, and drop all the stuff
from the fanfics. You will find that he is big bully,
or a incompetent spy. He lords over the Gryffindors,
or should I say Neville Longbottom. Snape takes a sick
atitude to Neville, and it is made worst by the way
his parents were totured to past the point of madness.
To say that the Longbottom's got what was coming to
them is just sick, and that has been said.
Caleb 
Ps I think that I will find out if I am flameproof or not.

______________________________________________________________________ 
Web-hosting solutions for home and business! http://website.yahoo.ca



From degroote at altavista.com  Tue Feb  5 05:56:45 2002
From: degroote at altavista.com (Vicky DeGroote)
Date: 4 Feb 2002 21:56:45 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Poor little Harry/certain room/wizard
    medicine/good characters
Message-ID: <20020205055645.11731.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34658

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020204/08940e30/attachment.ksh>

From catlady at wicca.net  Tue Feb  5 07:36:10 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 07:36:10 -0000
Subject: Women's Institute / Percy's Insecurity / 
Message-ID: <a3o21a+3go8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34659

Joanne wrote:

> And don't forget the Salem Witches' Institute that had a banner at
> the World Cup, though that name seems more like a research
> institution than a high school.

I am CONVINCED that Salem Witches' Institute is a pun on Women's 
Institute. The Women's Institute is not a school, not a research 
institute, not a prison for female felons like the California 
Institution for Women in Tehachapi. It is a club for housewives that 
at one time was common in rural England (I don't know at all about 
Scotland). I can't really think of a USA equivalent: Eastern Star and 
the women's auxiliary of the Grange are different by their connection 
to men's clubs, and the Women's Alliances of the various churches are 
different by being denominational. John Walton's grandmother was 
involved with Women's Institute, maybe he can explain it better. 

Eileen Lucky Kari wrote:

> You didn't adress my example of Percy, did you? :-) Would you say
> his insecurity comes from anywhere?

If our theories about the ages of Bill, Charlie, and Percy are 
correct, when Percy goes to his first year at Hogwarts, it is the 
first time in his life that he is living without any brothers around, 
and, to make things worse, Bill and Charlie had been out of school 
long enough that they were becoming legendary characters. Teachers 
and older students probably made remarks about expecting Percy to 
accomplish as much as his brothers Bill the Head Boy and Charlie the 
Quidditch Captain.

Zarleycat Marianne wrote:

> Don't you all think it interesting that most Snape fans can't seem 
> to cut Sirius any slack, and most Sirius fans only want to give
> Snape enough rope with which to hang him?

I've never understood this, as I like both of them *and* Remus. But I 
*intensely* dislike Karkaroff: it's not his weak chin hidden under 
goatee and yellow teeth (Snape is said to have the latter as well, 
and btw I imagine Snape as having a goatee), it's his vast air of 
self-satisfaction, which then vanishes into panic the moment "Moody" 
appears. Imagining poor Severus having a 'relationship' with *that* 
is even worse than imaging him having a 'relationship' with Filch 
(for which Pippin presented the evidence in a post IIRC back in 2000).




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  5 01:57:08 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 01:57:08 -0000
Subject: About Ron & money)
In-Reply-To: <142186581949.20020201131545@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <a3ne5k+6h3l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34660

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne <siskiou at e...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Btw, having not read all the books, yet: has Harry ever
> offered to help Ron out, financially?
> Buying him something he knows Ron wants?
> And if yes, what was Ron's reaction?
> 


In GoF, Harry buys an expensive souvenier for Ron at the Quidditch 
World Cup.  Ron becomes very flustered, insisting that it costs too 
much, but Harry smoothes this over by saying it will be his Christmas 
present for "the next ten years."  Ron later pays Harry back, but 
with Leprechaun gold.  Months later, when Ron learns that Leprechaun 
gold disappears within a few hours, he's upset that Harry hadn't told 
him it disappeared.  He becomes even MORE upset when Harry admits 
that he didn't even notice that it had disappeared.  "Must be nice," 
Ron said abruptly...."To have so much money you don't notice if a 
pocketful of Galleons goes missing."

Harry learns his lesson, and the next time he wants to buy Ron 
something expensive, he gives the money to Fred and George and tells 
them to tell Ron it's from them.





From huntleyl at mssm.org  Tue Feb  5 02:06:34 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 21:06:34 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Do's and Don'ts of Being a Good Character
References: <a3n9pf+8r22@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001201c1ade9$bcf76680$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 34661

Cindy said:
>>I find it difficult to answer questions like this in any kind of 
consistent way.  When should the Good characters be permitted to 
deviate from conventions of fair play in the wizarding world?  How is 
it that an author can have her Good characters behave in these 
morally questionable ways and still remain Good in the readers' minds?>>

    One of the best signs of a capable writer is the ability to develop three-dimensional characters.  As in real life, *no one* should be perfectly good or perfectly evil in a well-written book.  Making characters multi-faceted makes them more believable and easier for the reader to relate to.  
    
    I mean, think about it.  Even Voldemort has his pitiable, neglected childhood.  It has been Hagrid's character to react violently towards people who insult/threaten D. since the beginning (remember where Dudley's pig tail came from?) for him to remain silent while K. verbally assaulted D. would have detracted from the credibility of his character.  
    
    Furthermore, who wants to read about perfect people?  Perfect people don't have moral dilemmas, they don't have any faults, they barely have emotions, they don't ever do anything wrong, and, most importantly, THEY DON'T EXIST.  Harry's a good boy, right?  And yet, he also has had his not-so-Good moments as well.  Furthermore, I violently protest the language "morally questionable" as if it were an uncommon and filthy thing.  *Everyone* behaves in "morally questionable" ways almost every minute of their lives.  As far as I'm concerned, Harry and his gang are doing allot better than most of us "real" people.  Be a little more forgiving of their few faults, okay? ^_^

laura       


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





From david_p at istop.com  Tue Feb  5 03:13:29 2002
From: david_p at istop.com (david_p2002ca)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 03:13:29 -0000
Subject: SHIP: R&H's spat after the ball
Message-ID: <a3nikp+q2t6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34662

I am reading a book called "The Hidden War" by the late Russian 
journalist Artyom Borovik.  There's a passage that to me is 
remarkably similar to the R&H interaction after the Yule ball in GoF.


...[T]hey happened to find themselves standing awkwardly close to 
each other.  Sudenly she broke the silence by turning to him and 
saying, in utter seriousness, "What a fool you are!"

"And why is that?" Kirillov asked, dumbfounded.

"Because no matter how many times you invite me to dance, I won't 
dance with you," she said, turning away from him.

"Where did you get the idea I would even ask you?" Kirillov 
asked... "I wasn't even thinking of asking you to dance," he blurted 
clumsily.  "Understand?"

"And that's exactly why," she said, turning back to him, "you are a 
fool."

Her name was Elyka.  And before Kirillov's departure departure for 
Afghanistan, she became Elyka Kirillov.

(New York: Grove Press  ISBN 0-8021-3775-X)

Definite shades of R&H's spat post Yule in GoF.

David P.




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  5 04:56:15 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 04:56:15 -0000
Subject: Snape's purpose in GofF
Message-ID: <a3nolf+8u0m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34663

Everyone seems to take it as a given that Snape will be a spy and 
Voldemort will let him, but what if Dumbledore has a totally 
different plan?

We know the Dark Mark is a link between Deatheaters. As one of 
the 'Great Wizards' deemed worthy enough to be on chocolate frogs, 
what if Dumbledore developed a totally unexpected spell?

How about if Dumbledore cast a spell on Snape's Dark mark giving him 
a sort of radar to DE's? This would give Dumbledore a strategic step 
up over Voldemort. I doubt LV would ever consider it, thinkinghimself 
omnipotant.

You have to remember, LV is at his core flawed, wanting to stomp out 
muggles and half-blood wizards despite being half-blood himself. 
While being a genius at planning (creating multi-level contingency 
plans) he is obsessive/compulsive with strong paranid tendencies. 
Still, his plans depend on the likes of Pettigrew, Malfoy, Crabbe, 
and Goyle. They obey out of fear or greed, but given the chance would 
betray to gain power.

Uncmark







From uncmark at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  5 05:16:17 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 05:16:17 -0000
Subject: New Teachers for Order of the Phoenix
Message-ID: <a3npr1+6rkj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34664

So gossip has Fleur Delacour wanting to teach at Hogwarts. What 
classes are open?

Defense against the Dark Arts? She doesn't quite seem up to it 
(although she'd be better than Lockheart or Queril) I could see her 
as a teaching assistant or maybe teaching a seminar on foreign magic 
cultures. Could you see her working with Hagrid on lectures on 
Magical Creatures?

Would Hagrid be teaching fulltime? He may very well be a liaison to 
the giants which might approach fulltime work.

The new DADA teacher? Moody may very well retire or go to fulltime 
Auror duty. The mysterious Arabella Figg? possible. 

Is she the same Mrs. Figg that lived down the street from the 
Dursleys? Intriguing.

What about Snape? I'd like to see what he would do with a Dark Arts 
background.

That would leave a Potions teaching post free for Fleur.

Opinions?

Uncmark






From leung_b at msn.com  Tue Feb  5 06:11:15 2002
From: leung_b at msn.com (bsc_arch)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 06:11:15 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter & Bill Gates
Message-ID: <a3nt23+it30@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34665

Does anybody have the feeling that Harry Potter bears a striking 
resemblance to Bill Gates? (dark dishevelled hair and glasses)





From devin.smither at yale.edu  Tue Feb  5 06:18:09 2002
From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 06:18:09 -0000
Subject: A slight discussion on all these debates!
Message-ID: <a3ntf1+f2of@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34666

Does anyone else find that they are wildly impassioned AND SO 
DETERMINED to show, express, hopefully convert people to their own 
point of view?  Yet, when they go back to the books themselves, it 
really only brings smiles, and tears, and just the joy of such a good 
STORY, and they forget all the bickering here.  I'm not at all trying 
to say that this debate is without value.  I've taken part in it (on 
this board and in my head), and I think it is termendously WITH value 
to hear other people's takes on characters, their possible pasts, 
their actions, responses, possible demises, etc., yet what draws us 
all together is this incredibly entertaining, and so MAGICAL (in 
every possible way) story and place.  I can't wait to feel that same 
magic, that same ABSORPTION into something that you only feel like 
once a year or so, into a book or a movie.  It happened to me with 
Network, it happened to me with The Graduate, with The Wall (album 
not movie), with Led Zeppelin's Zoso (L. Zep IV), and it's happened 
with each and every Harry Potter book, and I can't wait for that 
feeling to rush in again.  It makes me want to explode with happiness 
when I get that magic, that absorpiton, and I'm just utterly 
engrossed.  I hope anyone understands what I'm saying.  Write if you 
do.

In the meantime, I must really start my little happy dance over 
something I read on an ezboard (an obviously mature moderator, not 
just some random kid's posting) about release dates of the 5th book.  
With that, I bid you adieu.

Devin





From zoehooch at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  5 06:23:34 2002
From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 06:23:34 -0000
Subject: How powerful are witches and wizards?
Message-ID: <a3ntp6+3eum@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34667

We seem to have a lot of similar, recurring questions.

Why couldn't Crouch Sr. heal Mrs. Crouch?
Why did Tom Riddle's mother die during childbirth, as she's a witch?
Why can't the Weasleys conjure up new clothes and books for their 
kids?  Or even conjure up some more rooms for their overcrowded house?
Why don't wizards with not-so-lovely features give themselves a new 
look using magic?

I've been wondering ... just how powerful are the witches and wizards 
in this magical world of Harry Potter?  If we look at the faculty at 
Hogwarts, we see that they each have their specialities, except for 
Snape who probably has 2 specialities, and indeed each contributes 
according to his or her speciality in protecting the 
Philosopher's/Sorcerer's stone. Does this then indicate that they 
aren't quite as powerful in other areas?  Is it only a few quite 
exceptional wizards, such as Dumbledore, who are truly gifted in a 
great many areas?

Perhaps wizard talent maps more to human talent.  Some of my friends 
are technically and scientifically talented. Others excel at writing. 
Still others are artists. And my best friend is a massage therapist 
and acupuncturist. All of them are very smart and very wonderful, but 
each has his or her very special gift.

I guess my point is that I think we sometimes expect too much from 
our characters as they face life in the wizarding world.

just a thought,
Zoe Hooch





From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Tue Feb  5 10:41:30 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 10:41:30 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter & Bill Gates; Snapers vs. Sirists
In-Reply-To: <a3nt23+it30@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3ocsq+tv92@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34668

bsc_arch <leung_b at m...> asked:
> Does anybody have the feeling that Harry Potter bears a striking 
> resemblance to Bill Gates? (dark dishevelled hair and glasses)

OK, I promised myself I would just lurk (too busy to write) but I 
couldn't pass this up.  When I saw the Harry Potter movie, I told my 
husband, "I'd enjoy this a lot more if Harry Potter didn't look like a 
young Bill Gates."  Gates actually has fairly light hair, but he still 
resembles "Harry" a lot. 

Hmmmm.... Harry looks like Bill Gates.... We also know that Tom Riddle 
in his youth looked a lot like Harry....  That's it!  Bill Gates is 
really Lord Voldemort!  No wonder he has all that money!


Well, since I'm writing, I have to talk about Snape and Sirius.  I'm 
one of the many who like Snape but can't stand Sirius. (Remus is 
fine.) I really don't think it has anything to do with which character 
is morally good and which is evil -- they are both far from being 
saints. Rather, I think it depends on whether one likes the impulsive, 
reckless sort (Sirius) or the very controlled, enigmatic type (Snape). 
A few people like both, but most people only go for one or the other.

Of course, the fact that S & S are enemies in the books is another 
reason why people tend to like one or the other, but not both.  


Caleb (in message 34657) implied there was something almost 
pathological about liking Snape, saying:
> Snapers you should take a look hard look at Snape, and drop all the 
> stuff from the fanfics. You will find that he is big bully,
> or a incompetent spy....To say that the Longbottom's got what was 
> coming to them is just sick, and that has been said 

Believe me, I've taken a long look at Snape.  (Or, I would have if he 
were real -- sigh.)  Snape has tons of positive qualities, which I 
enumerated in a post a while ago. (In a nutshell -- brave, articulate, 
brilliant, talented wizard, etc.) And no, I don't read fanfics; I got 
everything about Snape from cannon. I don't know where you get the 
idea that Snape is an "incompetent spy"; do we know of *anyone* else 
who spied on Voldy and lived?  And who here said that "the 
Longbottom's got what was coming to them"?  I don't remember anyone 
saying that and I certainly don't think that at all.  I dislike 
Snape's bullying of Neville, but console myself that it may be part of 
an act. (This has been discussed at length here before.)

Obviously, there must be *something* attractive about Snape, because 
as has been said here before, "A large proportion of Harry Potter 
fandom consists of people who are simply infatuated with him."  I see 
nothing pathological about this; I don't think people would like him 
if they thought he was truly evil.  The truly evil characters in the 
Potterverse seem to have few fans.  No one is infatuated with Voldy 
that I know of, and Pettigrew has no fans as far as I can tell.  
Lucius isn't popular, either.  And the people who like Draco almost 
always have some theory of why he's really nice underneath it all. 
It's very reassuring that people prefer the good characters. 




From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Tue Feb  5 13:20:17 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 13:20:17 -0000
Subject: Women's Institute / Percy's Insecurity /
In-Reply-To: <a3o21a+3go8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3om6h+jg5f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34669

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" <catlady at w...> wrote:
> Joanne wrote:
> 
> > And don't forget the Salem Witches' Institute that had a banner at
> > the World Cup, though that name seems more like a research
> > institution than a high school.
> 
> I am CONVINCED that Salem Witches' Institute is a pun on Women's 
> Institute. . . . It is a club for housewives that 
> at one time was common in rural England (I don't know at all about 
> Scotland). I can't really think of a USA equivalent: Eastern Star and 
> the women's auxiliary of the Grange are different by their connection 
> to men's clubs, and the Women's Alliances of the various churches are 
> different by being denominational. John Walton's grandmother was 
> involved with Women's Institute, maybe he can explain it better. 

Thanks for that insight, I think you're on to something!  Now *That* is the sort 
of thing that makes the experience of Brits reading the books different from 
Americans'!  Even Scholastic's "Americanization" of the language could not achive 
editor Levine's goal of making the American reading experience comparable to a  
Brit's.




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Feb  5 12:49:44 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 12:49:44 -0000
Subject: Snapers or Sirists (was Defending Snape, Dissing Sirius)
In-Reply-To: <a3ne87+10tpa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3okd8+muri@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34670

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" <Zarleycat at a...> wrote:
> Don't you all think it interesting that most Snape fans can't seem 
to 
> cut Sirius any slack, and most Sirius fans only want to give Snape 
> enough rope with which to hang him? If someone bashes one "S-man", 
> the defense of that character almost always includes an attack on 
the 
> other "S-man."

Well, being one of those emotionally-split people who love both S-
men, I've thought about this quite a lot.  Here's my take on it.  
When I'm deciding whether or not I'm going to cut a character slack 
on any action, there are three things I'm mainly concerned with: the 
action itself; thed motives and circumstances that caused it (which 
includes the intended goal); and the character's subsequent feelings 
and behavior about it.  So let's take these one by one, shall we?

1. The action itself.  For Sirius it's "the prank."  For Snape it's 
joining the DE.  Now, while we don't really know anything about 
Snape's DE career, I'm willing to believe that allying yourself with 
your world's Ultimate Evil(TM) is a bigger sin than a high-school 
prank, even a potentially deadly one.  So Snape is worse off than 
Sirius on that one.

2. The motives and circumsances.  We have sketchy information about 
the prank, but the impression I get was that Sirius did it because 
he thought Snape was a git, and that he didn't intend Snape to be 
killed or hurt, he simply failed to think through the consequences.  
This doesn't speak well of 16-year-old Sirius' temper or 
intelligence, but since we have no information at all on how and why 
Snape joined the DE, we really can't say who's doing better or worse 
here.

3.  Subsequent reactions.  Again, we have sketchy information, but 
we do know that Snape quit the DE, turned himself in, and became a 
spy for the good guys "at great personal risk."  In other words, he 
recognized his mistake, regretted it, and tried to make amends.  
There's no evidence of Sirius doing any of these things -- in the 
Shrieking Shack he still talks about the prank as if he doesn't 
think he did anything wrong.  So Sirius is doing worse than Snape 
here.

Of course, there are other factors to consider, like Snape's day-to-
day nastiness; Sirius, as far as we know, does not spend most of his 
available time purposely frightening small children, which is mark 
in his favor.  But then, I don't love Snape becaue I think he's a 
nice fluffy-bunny type of guy.

The upshot of it all, I guess, is that I'm willing to cut both guys 
some slack, but not a total clean slate.  Which is fine with me.  
It's that combination of genuine nobility and very real personal 
flaws that attracts me in the first place.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com






From cindysphynx at home.com  Tue Feb  5 14:30:04 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 14:30:04 -0000
Subject: Snapers vs. Sirists; Canon Snape
In-Reply-To: <a3ocsq+tv92@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3oq9c+5f13@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34671

Judy wrote:

>Snape has tons of positive qualities, which I 
> enumerated in a post a while ago. (In a nutshell -- brave, 
articulate, 
> brilliant, talented wizard, etc.) 

On what canon basis can we really say that Snape is all of these 
things?  Let's take them one at a time:

Brave -- I suppose the canon basis for this is his spying at great 
personal risk.  I don't see how this makes him more brave than 
Sirius, who risks having his soul sucked out every time he tries to 
protect Harry.  To be rather harsh about it, Snape turned DE and did 
Heaven-Knows-What to aid the most evil wizard ever.  If he now has to 
suffer personal risk to undo what he helped do in the first place, 
why am I supposed to be impressed with this?

Articulate -- OK, he's definitely articulate, although his articulate 
moments usually come in his attempts to embarrass, scare or humiliate 
powerless students.  He's not any more articulate than Sirius and 
Lupin, really, but OK, I'll give you that one.

Brilliant and Talented -- I see no basis in canon for this at all.  
Snape out-duels Lockhart-the-Fraud.  You have to admit he is out-
smarted by Moody (twice in GoF) and Hermione and the trio (once in 
the Shrieking Shack).  He gets his leg mangled in PS/SS.  He doesn't 
ward off the dementor in GoF.  How do we know that Snape isn't just a 
middling potion-brewer?  We do know that he is far from a brilliant 
teacher, however.  I'd substitute "Nosy and Mean" for "Brilliant and 
Talented." :-)  What in canon am I missing?

Seriously, though, the level of affection for Snape among fans is 
still a mystery to me.  I can understand thinking Snape plays an 
important role in the books, and I can understand thinking that he is 
interesting and mysterious.  But that's as far as I can go.  

Lupin and Sirius, though, have displayed many positive qualities in 
canon that naturally cause people to adore them.  Yes, they have 
flaws, but there are many positive things that they have said and 
done in canon.  That's why I have a hard time seeing how Snape 
generates the same warm fuzzies that Lupin and Sirius do.  I think it 
is quite possible that Snape will turn out to be a two-dimensional 
cartoon nemesis for Harry, just like Draco.

Cindy (who thinks that Snape will ultimately turn out to be evil or 
incompetent or unlikable because JKR doesn't seem to think much of 
canon Snape)




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  5 13:59:52 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 13:59:52 -0000
Subject: the Train Stomp -Fred & George as bullies
In-Reply-To: <a3gis6+v1hi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3oogo+pcos@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34672

I'm going to go against the trend here and defend HRH, and even Fred 
and George (despite their "adult" status), for hexing and then 
stepping on Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle at the end of GoF.   I won't 
excuse them because of the Slytherins insensitive comments about 
Cedric (although that would have made me want to hex them too!) but 
because the 3 Slytherins were standing there threatening the lives of 
Harry, Hermione, and all of the Weasleys!

"You've picked the losing side, Potter!  I warned you!..."  He jerked 
his head at Ron and Hermione.  "Too late now, Potter! They'll be the 
first to go, now the Dark Lord's back!  Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers 
first!  Well--second--Diggory was the f--"

This isn't an empty schoolboy threat.  The fathers of all 3 
Slytherins in that doorway are DE's and will undoubtedly soon be 
killing "Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers."

As for the "stomping" on the Slytherins after they were unconcious, 
please keep in mind that no one did "stomp."  Fred and George each 
deliberately stepped on one of the Slytherins as they entered the 
compartment, but if they merely stepped on their backs,it probably 
didn't even leave a bruise. There is no mention of anyone stepping on 
them when leaving the compartment, in fact, the book says that 
Harry "stepped over" them as he left.

As for Fred and George hissing at Matthew Baddock as he was sorted 
into Slytherin, you're right.  It was uncalled for.  5 points each 
from Gryffindor.

"jklb66" 




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Tue Feb  5 14:46:37 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 14:46:37 -0000
Subject: The Infamous "Prank"
In-Reply-To: <a3okd8+muri@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3or8d+c2fc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34673

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:

> 2. The motives and circumsances.  We have sketchy information about 
> the prank, but the impression I get was that Sirius did it because 
> he thought Snape was a git, and that he didn't intend Snape to be 
> killed or hurt, he simply failed to think through the consequences.
 
> This doesn't speak well of 16-year-old Sirius' temper or 
> intelligence, but since we have no information at all on how and
why 
> Snape joined the DE, we really can't say who's doing better or
worse 
> here.

Interesting that Sirius tells Harry that he told Snape about the
Shack, but doesn't say why.  My guess is that Snape slipped Sirius 
some Veritaserum, as he threatened to do to Harry.  Why did JKR 
have Snape show us the Veritaserum? Well, we did need to see it 
before the scene with Crouch, Jr., but perhaps we also need it to 
know(later) that Serius blabbed to Snape about the Shrieking Shack 
under the spell of the Veritaserum.  

Granted that cuts Sirius a lot of slack, and puts Snape in an even 
worse light. Still, I expect Snape to come out of Book VII smelling 
like a rose. Point being that everybody has a line they will not
cross.

tex





From margdean at erols.com  Tue Feb  5 15:26:46 2002
From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 10:26:46 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snapers vs. Sirists; Canon Snape
References: <a3oq9c+5f13@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C5FF9B6.C3FC9DD9@erols.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34674

cindysphynx wrote:

> Brilliant and Talented -- I see no basis in canon for this at all.
> Snape out-duels Lockhart-the-Fraud.  You have to admit he is out-
> smarted by Moody (twice in GoF) and Hermione and the trio (once in
> the Shrieking Shack).  He gets his leg mangled in PS/SS.  He doesn't
> ward off the dementor in GoF.  How do we know that Snape isn't just a
> middling potion-brewer?  We do know that he is far from a brilliant
> teacher, however.  I'd substitute "Nosy and Mean" for "Brilliant and
> Talented." :-)  What in canon am I missing?

You're missing the statements that Lupin makes about the
Wolfsbane Potion, e.g. that it's very complex (certainly beyond
his own talents in the field) and that "not many wizards are up
to making it."  He then goes on to say that he's very lucky to be
working with Professor Snape, who is.

I think that whatever else you may say about Snape, we are meant
to understand that he =is= exceptionally skilled in his own
field, i.e., Potions.  This doesn't necessarily mean he's
exceptionally skilled at =teaching= it, of course -- that's a
different skill set!


--Margaret Dean
  <margdean at erols.com>



From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Feb  5 15:02:55 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 15:02:55 -0000
Subject: Snapers vs. Sirists; Canon Snape
In-Reply-To: <a3oq9c+5f13@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3os6v+5iih@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34675

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> Judy wrote:
> 
> >Snape has tons of positive qualities, which I 
> > enumerated in a post a while ago. (In a nutshell -- brave, 
> articulate, 
> > brilliant, talented wizard, etc.) 
> 
> On what canon basis can we really say that Snape is all of these 
> things?  Let's take them one at a time:
> 
> Brave -- I suppose the canon basis for this is his spying at great 
> personal risk.  I don't see how this makes him more brave than 
> Sirius, who risks having his soul sucked out every time he tries to 
> protect Harry.  

First of all, the question is not "is Snape more brave than Sirius?",
the question is "is Snape brave?"  Second, there is other canonical
evidence for this besides his spying activities (and given Voldie's
tendency to Crucio anyone who even mildly annoys him, the spying is
enough proof for me).

When Quirrel makes his first attempt at the Stone on Halloween, Snape
goes after him, and gets his leg mangled by a giant three-headed  dog
for his trouble.  He knew the dog was there, so it's not like he
wasn't aware of the danger when he went.

When he discovers that Lupin forgot to take his potion, he goes after
him, even though he knows there's a good chance he might end up having
to face down a werewolf.  When he gets to the Shrieking shack, he
finds himself facing not only Sirius -- whom he believes to be a
particularly brutal killer, the monster who murdered thirteen people
with one curse, the only man ever to escape from Azkaban -- but also
Lupin, whom he believes to be in league with Sirius.  Yet, confronted
with two such vicious and evil (he thinks) enemies, Snape shows no
sign of fear or backing down; instead he faces them in order two
protect a bunch of kids he doesn't even like.

> Brilliant and Talented -- I see no basis in canon for this at all.  
> Snape out-duels Lockhart-the-Fraud.  You have to admit he is out-
> smarted by Moody (twice in GoF) and Hermione and the trio (once in 
> the Shrieking Shack).  He gets his leg mangled in PS/SS.  He doesn't 
> ward off the dementor in GoF.  How do we know that Snape isn't just
a 
> middling potion-brewer? 

It's established in PoA that the Wolfsbane potion is particularly hard
to make, yet Snape get it right every time -- and Dumbledore trusts
him to get it right every time, knowing that lives depend on his
success.  In general, we have never seen Snape get a potion wrong; and
whenever a potion is needed, the people at the school always go to him
-- they don't order from St. Mungo's, or drop into Ye Old Potions
Shoppe in Diagon Alley or somesuch.  Snape can't possibly be the only
potions source in the entire wizarding world.  If he wasn't absolutely
reliable, people would go somewhere else.

Whether he's brilliant at anything else, I don't know (though he seems
at least competent enough with a wand), but hey, one can't be great at
everything.  I betcha Sirius is a crappy ballet dancer. <G>

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From blpurdom at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  5 15:06:31 2002
From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 15:06:31 -0000
Subject: Snapers or Sirists (was Defending Snape, Dissing Sirius)
In-Reply-To: <a3okd8+muri@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3osdo+sh4t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34676

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" <Zarleycat at a...> wrote:
> > Don't you all think it interesting that most Snape fans can't 
> > seem to cut Sirius any slack, and most Sirius fans only want to 
> > give Snape enough rope with which to hang him? If someone bashes 
> > one "S-man", the defense of that character almost always 
> > includes an attack on the other "S-man."

I too like both characters, and I am equally able to be a Snape 
apologist and a Sirius apologist (see below).
 
> Well, being one of those emotionally-split people who love both S-
> men, I've thought about this quite a lot.  [snip] We have sketchy 
> information about the prank, but the impression I get was that 
> Sirius did it because he thought Snape was a git, and that he 
> didn't intend Snape to be killed or hurt, he simply failed to 
> think through the consequences.  This doesn't speak well of 16-
> year-old Sirius' temper or intelligence, but since we have no 
> information at all on how and why Snape joined the DE, we really 
> can't say who's doing better or worse here.

The motivation about wouldn't speak very well of Sirius (not that 
the "prank" does in general) but I would hazard to say that he 
probably had much more dire motives and felt rather stuck, or he 
wouldn't have done something quite so extreme (and something he 
clearly did without much thought--I think it was spur-of-the-moment 
and not premeditated at all).  

Think about it; all of the Marauders had something to hide.  Remus 
was a werewolf.  The others were illegal Animagi.  If Snape was in 
the position of almost being mauled by Remus, it was probably 
because he followed the Marauders, wanting to know what they were up 
to or wanting to get them in trouble for being out-of-bounds.  If 
they were simply sneaking around the castle and he did this, I doubt 
Sirius would have responded by doing something that could have 
killed him.  But Snape was in a position to know about Remus and the 
others.  I think Sirius' main motivation was to protect Remus from 
being outed as a werewolf; he may not have cared whether it became 
common knowledge that the other three had mastered the Animagus 
transfiguration.  He was protecting his friend.  

What happened when Snape let "slip" to the Slytherins (the end of 
PoA) that Remus was a werewolf?  Remus had to leave the school.  
Lost his job.  When Snape was young, Dumbledore may have been able 
to threaten him with expulsion if he Remus' secret (once Snape had 
almost been mauled, the wolf was out of the bag, obviously).  As an 
adult, Dumbledore could possibly have given Snape the sack and sent 
him out into the world, but he probably felt that would put him at 
risk of retaliation from former DEs (I'm one of those who thinks 
Dumbledore hired Snape to give him sanctuary at Hogwarts after it 
was revealed publicly that he was a spy).

To go back to Snape's view, he probably thought he was quite right 
to get Remus the sack; a werewolf IS a dangerous creature to have 
around, especially if he's not taking his Wolfsbane Potion.  There 
were extenuating circumstances the night they were all in the 
Shrieking Shack, obviously, but as someone who was once almost 
killed by a werewolf, I think Snape can be forgiven for his 
particular perspective on this.  And I think Sirius can be forgiven 
for thinking, on the spur of the moment (and at the age of 16) that 
it was preferable for Snape to be attacked rather than reveal his 
good friend's secret to the world and ruin his life (although he 
might have thought about how this friend would feel about becoming a 
murderer).

> The upshot of it all, I guess, is that I'm willing to cut both 
> guys some slack, but not a total clean slate.  Which is fine with 
> me.  It's that combination of genuine nobility and very real 
> personal flaws that attracts me in the first place.

They're not perfect people, certainly, but in their own way, they 
both mean well.  Sirius returns to Hogwarts at great personal risk 
to make sure Harry is safe during the Tournament.  And Snape 
protects a boy he seems to dislike spectacularly.  Many people will 
do this for people they like only, but he doesn't restrict himself 
in this way, showing his integrity and strength of character.

--Barb
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb





From cindysphynx at home.com  Tue Feb  5 15:27:25 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 15:27:25 -0000
Subject: Snapers vs. Sirists; Canon Snape
In-Reply-To: <a3os6v+5iih@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3otkt+dc6n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34677

Marina wrote (about Snape's bravery):

> 
> First of all, the question is not "is Snape more brave than 
Sirius?",
> the question is "is Snape brave?"  

That's true, of course.  But if one values bravery, and if Sirius is 
more brave than Snape, then a Snape fan ought to like Sirius as well, 
no?

Marina again:

>Second, there is other canonical
> evidence for this besides his spying activities (and given Voldie's
> tendency to Crucio anyone who even mildly annoys him, the spying is
> enough proof for me).
> 
> When Quirrel makes his first attempt at the Stone on Halloween, 
Snape
> goes after him, and gets his leg mangled by a giant three-headed  
dog
> for his trouble.  He knew the dog was there, so it's not like he
> wasn't aware of the danger when he went.

Doesn't Snape's injury count as a strike against him in 
the "Brilliant and Talented" category?  Quirrell doesn't get mangled, 
and I doubt "Not Fully Qualified" Hagrid would get mangled.  

Marina again: 
 
> When he discovers that Lupin forgot to take his potion, he goes 
after
> him, even though he knows there's a good chance he might end up 
having
> to face down a werewolf.  When he gets to the Shrieking shack, he
> finds himself facing not only Sirius -- whom he believes to be a
> particularly brutal killer, the monster who murdered thirteen people
> with one curse, the only man ever to escape from Azkaban -- but also
> Lupin, whom he believes to be in league with Sirius.  Yet, 
confronted
> with two such vicious and evil (he thinks) enemies, Snape shows no
> sign of fear or backing down; instead he faces them in order two
> protect a bunch of kids he doesn't even like.

Oh, I just can't get on board here.  Snape goes to the Shack under an 
invisibility cloak and armed with his wand.  When he arrives, he 
finds three kids, an unarmed Sirius Black, and his professional 
colleague Lupin.  He doesn't take the cloak off until he is good and 
ready.  I see no reason to think Snape was in any great danger or 
behaved in an especially brave manner.  I don't think Snape was being 
brave to follow Lupin; I believe he knew the cloak would protect him, 
and he also knew the full moon wasn't up yet.

Marina again:

> It's established in PoA that the Wolfsbane potion is particularly 
hard
> to make, yet Snape get it right every time -- and Dumbledore trusts
> him to get it right every time, knowing that lives depend on his
> success.  

OK, this is true and canon-based.  I forgot about that.  OK, Snape 
can make one potion that not many wizards are talented enough to make.

Marina again:

>In general, we have never seen Snape get a potion wrong; and
> whenever a potion is needed, the people at the school always go to 
him
> -- they don't order from St. Mungo's, or drop into Ye Old Potions
> Shoppe in Diagon Alley or somesuch.  

Actually, I don't think we can really say this based on canon.  I 
think there are only two other examples of characters using or 
requesting a potion from Snape.  One is the Mandrake solution, and I 
don't recall anything in canon suggesting that it is difficult to 
make.    

The other is the Veritaserum.  There is nothing in canon that says 
that Snape brewed the Veritaserum, and there is nothing in canon that 
says brewing it is difficult.  Yes, Veritaserum is controlled by 
strict ministry guidelines, but that is probably because it can be 
abused.  Snape could have purchased it, for all we know.  The point 
is that we just don't know, so it isn't probative of Snape's 
brilliance one way or the other.  

Cindy (working on a theory about why Snape turned spy and why he came 
back)




From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com  Tue Feb  5 15:35:49 2002
From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:35:49 EST
Subject: The Worst of Snape (new thought on old subject) 
Message-ID: <165.7e474f4.299155d5@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34678

A little while ago we had a discussion on The best and worst of certain 
characters, one of them being Severus Snape. Before I begin, it should go on 
record that I'm a Snapeist/Snaper/Snapeite/Snapeoid/whatever we're called and 
love the sadistic bastard in every way ^^ However, there is one thing he 
*almost* did which I don't think anyone mentioned (sorry if it's been picked 
apart to death though) that would have been unforgivable in my books. He 
almost kills (or at least poisons) Trevor the toad. I know I'd feel awful if 
someone hurt my pet, and Snape was going to do it-it wasn't even just a 
threat.  

~Cassie (I have a feeling this isn't going to help the "Snapers" cases, but 
then again I'm not trying to turn him into a "good guy" ^^) 



From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com  Tue Feb  5 15:41:22 2002
From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:41:22 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snapers vs. Sirists; Canon Snape
Message-ID: <50.6145414.29915722@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34679

 cindysphynx writes:


> Oh, I just can't get on board here.  Snape goes to the Shack under an 
> invisibility cloak and armed with his wand.  When he arrives, he 
> finds three kids, an unarmed Sirius Black, and his professional 
> colleague Lupin.  He doesn't take the cloak off until he is good and 
> ready.  I see no reason to think Snape was in any great danger or 
> behaved in an especially brave manner.  I don't think Snape was being 
> brave to follow Lupin; I believe he knew the cloak would protect him, 
> and he also knew the full moon wasn't up yet.

But he didn't know that the invisiblity cloak was there *until* he got to the 
Whomping Willow. He just saw Lupin run in there on the Marauder's Map. If 
that cloak hadn't been there, I think Snape still would have followed them 
in. But because it was there he was using it to his advantage. 

~Cassie~ 


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




From cindysphynx at home.com  Tue Feb  5 15:42:20 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 15:42:20 -0000
Subject: Eureka! Snape and the Marauder's Map
In-Reply-To: <a3me00+krrk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3ougs+vtlk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34680

Pippin wrote (about Snape questioning Lupin about the Map):

> I am kicking myself, because I should have realized this as soon 
> as I finished GoF. The name Snape recognizes from the Map is 
> *Wormtail*. He doesn't know it from Hogwarts, he knows it from 
> being a Death Eater, and (this is the kicker) he thinks "Wormtail" 
> is Voldemort's code name for the traitor  *Sirius Black*.  It 
doesn't 
> matter that there's no physical resemblance between Pettigrew 
> and Black, even in Death Eater robes. A little polyjuice goes 
> along way, as Snape knows perfectly well. 
> 
> When Snape summons Lupin to his office, Lupin has no idea 
> that Snape knows anything about Wormtail, and of course *he*  
> thinks Wormtail is the one person who *couldn't* have given 
> Harry the Map. 

Let's stop here.  I'm a little confused.  I'm with you when you say 
Snape thinks Wormtail is Sirius Black based on Snape's days as a DE.  
I guess Snape kept hearing that this Wormtail fellow would be a 
traitor and would betray the Potters, but Snape is under the mistaken 
assumption that Black is Wormtail.

I lost you, however, on why Snape would summon Lupin to question 
Lupin.  Snape detests Lupin and thinks Lupin is untrustworthy, so why 
bother?

Pippin again:

>Thus the stage is set for a comedy of errors. 
> When Lupin says, "Wormtail or one of those people?" it's the 
> perfect wrong remark. Snape is bound to believe that Lupin is 
> baiting him (again!) but he can't question Lupin more directly 
> without revealing the source of his knowledge. 

Why would Snape think Harry got the map from the "manufacturers" if 
he thinks Wormtail is Black, who is one of the manufacturers?  Snape 
thinks Black wants to kill Harry, so if Black catches up with Harry, 
why wouldn't Black just kill Harry on the spot rather than give him a 
map?  

Pippin again (about the Map's evidentiary value):

>It's obvious to Snape that Lupin is in league with Black, 
> either as ally or dupe. 

I'm still having trouble with how Lupin fits in and gets tied to 
Wormtail and the Map.

Pippin again:

>Suppose Snape is the spy who revealed to 
> Dumbledore that someone close to the Potters was giving 
> information to Voldemort. Snape told Dumbledore he suspected 
> this person, known only as Wormtail, was in reality Sirius Black.  
> Snape has believed all these years that James chose to 
> disregard this warning and trust Sirius anyway. His berating 
> Harry for arrogance in the office gives some basis for this. Then 
> he's told that James actually did switch Secret Keepers, and 
> picked Pettigrew who really was the traitor. So it's  all Snape's 
> fault. 

I think you're on to something here.  Let's say Snape goes to 
Dumbledore with the information that Wormtail AKA Black is the 
traitor.  Dumbledore tells James that Black might be a spy and that 
Dumbledore should be the secretkeeper, but James won't listen.  I 
don't think Snape would have used the name Wormtail in his 
conversation with Dumbledore, because Dumbledore would have mentioned 
that to James.

Dumbledore believes Black is the secretkeeper, but James switches to 
Wormtail AKA Peter.  Snape knows that he did his level best to 
prevent James from using Black, it didn't work, and Black betrayed 
James.  I don't really see why Snape would feel guilty about this.

Hmmm.  Now I don't know what to think.

Cindy




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Feb  5 15:56:00 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 15:56:00 -0000
Subject: Snapers vs. Sirists; Canon Snape
In-Reply-To: <a3otkt+dc6n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3ovag+dfpr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34681

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> Marina wrote (about Snape's bravery):
> 
> > 
> > First of all, the question is not "is Snape more brave than 
> Sirius?",
> > the question is "is Snape brave?"  
> 
> That's true, of course.  But if one values bravery, and if Sirius is 
> more brave than Snape, then a Snape fan ought to like Sirius as
well, 
> no?

Well, I do like Sirius as well, but it doesn't necessarily follow
logically from liking Snape.  If Sirius had other traits that I really
hated, then bravery might not outweigh them.  For example, if I really
hated recklessness and impulsiveness, I might dislike Sirius even
while I acknowledged his bravery.

> 
> Marina again:
> 
> >Second, there is other canonical
> > evidence for this besides his spying activities (and given
Voldie's
> > tendency to Crucio anyone who even mildly annoys him, the spying
is
> > enough proof for me).
> > 
> > When Quirrel makes his first attempt at the Stone on Halloween, 
> Snape
> > goes after him, and gets his leg mangled by a giant three-headed  
> dog
> > for his trouble.  He knew the dog was there, so it's not like he
> > wasn't aware of the danger when he went.
> 
> Doesn't Snape's injury count as a strike against him in 
> the "Brilliant and Talented" category?  Quirrell doesn't get
mangled, 
> and I doubt "Not Fully Qualified" Hagrid would get mangled.  

Well, I'm not so sure that the ability to not get mangled by giant
three-headed dogs is a prerequisite for brilliance.  Hagrid has a
particular affinity with beasts, not to mention being too damn large
for most of them to damage -- and he knew about music putting Fluffy
to sleep -- so he has a number of advantages that have nothing to do
with brilliance.

As for Quirrel, we don't know what he did on this first attempt.  He
may have just opened the door, gone "Eeek! A giant three-headed dog!"
and run off again.  Snape, not knowing this, would've had to press on.

> 
> Marina again: 
>  
> > When he discovers that Lupin forgot to take his potion, he goes 
> after
> > him, even though he knows there's a good chance he might end up 
> having
> > to face down a werewolf.  When he gets to the Shrieking shack, he
> > finds himself facing not only Sirius -- whom he believes to be a
> > particularly brutal killer, the monster who murdered thirteen
people
> > with one curse, the only man ever to escape from Azkaban -- but
also
> > Lupin, whom he believes to be in league with Sirius.  Yet, 
> confronted
> > with two such vicious and evil (he thinks) enemies, Snape shows no
> > sign of fear or backing down; instead he faces them in order two
> > protect a bunch of kids he doesn't even like.
> 
> Oh, I just can't get on board here.  Snape goes to the Shack under
an 
> invisibility cloak and armed with his wand.  When he arrives, he 
> finds three kids, an unarmed Sirius Black, and his professional 
> colleague Lupin.  He doesn't take the cloak off until he is good and 
> ready.  I see no reason to think Snape was in any great danger or 
> behaved in an especially brave manner. 

We know Snape *wasn't* in danger, but I think he *thought* he was.  He
didn't see Lupin as a professional colleague, he saw him as a
bloodthirsty monster in league with a murderer.  And sure, Black
looked unarmed -- but the man escaped from Azkaban without a wand; who
knew what else he could do, evil DeathEater monster that he was?

Speaking of the invisibility cloak, Snape could easily have used it to
launch a sneak attack on Lupin and Black at any point -- that would've
been the safest thing for him to do.  Instead he revealed himself for
the confrontation.

> I don't think Snape was being 
> brave to follow Lupin; I believe he knew the cloak would protect
him, 
> and he also knew the full moon wasn't up yet.

I'm posting this from work and don't have my copy for PoA handy, so
correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Snape didn't have
the cloak when he first went looking for Lupin; he found it later. 
I'm not sure it would've protected him anyhow -- a werewolf would've
been able to track him by smell.  And yes, the moon wasn't up when he
started looking, but Snape didn't know in advance how long it would
take him to find Lupin.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com  Tue Feb  5 15:56:41 2002
From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:56:41 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Eureka! Snape and the Marauder's Map
Message-ID: <b8.226ed8e0.29915ab9@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34682

<insert lots of stuff about Snape thinking Black is Wormtail from Pippin>

Actually, I have my own theory on the map. Severus could have recognized it 
from back in his school days with "The Marauders". Black (I think) said that 
Snape was always following them around trying to get them expelled/in 
trouble. At another point, Lupin tells Harry that Filch took the map from 
from them. The always-on-their-tails Snape could've seen this. Perhaps Snape 
has a very good memory and recognized the map. Or perhaps it was even a topic 
of conversation with Snape and Filch at some point, but of course Filch 
couldn't've given Snape the map/parchment to poke around with then because 
Fred and George stole it. 

~Cassie~ 



From keegan at mcn.org  Tue Feb  5 15:55:14 2002
From: keegan at mcn.org (Catherine Keegan)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 07:55:14 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard Medicine
In-Reply-To: <a3nd6i+6tvg@eGroups.com>
References: <a3mq2g+ri8f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20020205072909.00a59490@mail.mcn.org>

No: HPFGUIDX 34683

I thought I would toss in my two knuts' worth before going back into lurk mode.

Wizard cosmetic surgery:  It may even be there but not everyone *wants or 
needs* to be pretty.  I think Moody rather enjoys his frightening 
face.  Hermione, raised in the Muggle world and probably with loads of TV 
to influence her not to mention those magazines in her parents' dental 
offices, knows that you *need* to be beautiful.  As an aside, during our 
trips to the UK, we both noticed that many of the above forty crowd seemed 
to need a lot of dental care.  We saw a lot of missing teeth and naturally 
colored teeth, too.  People had wrinkles and scars and managed to live 
happy lives.  I'm sure the paranoia caused by the media's obsession with 
scrawny youth will take hold there, too.

And as for medicine itself, only Voldemort and Flammel have made conscious 
efforts to cheat death.  It happens.  People get sick and die.  Our lovely 
world of Wizards is quite mortal (for which I applaud JKR.  It would have 
been far too simple to make them all superhuman, good looking and 
smart).  Even today's medicine which, at times, resembles magic, can't 
defeat cancer.  Having Barty's mother consign herself to prison for her 
last days so her nasty son can go free is so, dare I say it, human that I 
understand why she would do so.  If she could pass her wand over her body 
and free herself of all disease, why bother changing places?  If she was 
that powerful, why not just zip over to the island, disable those pesky 
Dementors and take her boy home?  Tom's pathetic mother dying in childbirth 
twists the future Voldemort's story into something richer than having him 
arrive a full-blown evil overlord.

Wizard technology and science are fun.   There are things that seem quite 
modern such as the Ministry's cars.  Things that are sort of now but seem 
archaic such as listening to the Wizarding Wireless but no mention of 
television or any kind of equivalent to a record player/tape deck/CD 
player.   Made me wonder how the kids ever heard of the Weird 
Sisters.  (Maybe there's more than one station?  I wonder what sort of 
ratings gimmicks they'd come up with.  No.  Wait.  Don't go there.  They'd 
probably use someone like Lockhart.)

Although there isn't enough information to form a good, solid answer, it 
seems to me that their medicine is really good at fixing visible problems: 
broken bones, shortening teeth, probably keeping your hair whatever color 
you want, closing up deep cuts and it also knows how to deal with magical 
ailments/aftereffects of curses and spells but it doesn't seem to be able 
to deal with horrible, insidious diseases like cancer.  I've often wondered 
how much overlap there would be between the two worlds and the image of 
Dumbledore, decked out in his robes and fancy boots, waiting in an English 
waiting room for some kind of routine medical check springs to mind.

Catherine in California



From laoisecronin at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  5 15:58:43 2002
From: laoisecronin at yahoo.com (laoisecronin)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 15:58:43 -0000
Subject: rumoured release dates book 5( wasA slight discussion on all these debates!
In-Reply-To: <a3ntf1+f2of@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3ovfj+j2ac@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34684

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uilnslcoap" <devin.smither at y...> 
wrote:.....
         a post on how absorbing harry potter is and everyone forgets 
their bickering when reading the books .....

> In the meantime, I must really start my little happy dance over 
> something I read on an ezboard (an obviously mature moderator, not 
> just some random kid's posting) about release dates of the 5th 
book.  
> With that, I bid you adieu.
> 
> Devin

  Can you tell everyone else what was said about release dates so we 
could start a little happy dance of our own:). I would love if a 
definite release date was given,i have trying to brace myself for the 
worst imagining that it would come out in september, so any date 
earlier than that would be brilliant for me!
I don't have a lot of time to serch for rumoured releasse dates ( no 
pc at home limited to colledge access) so if there are any rumours 
circulating about possible release dates i am willing recepient!




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Tue Feb  5 15:58:43 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 15:58:43 -0000
Subject: Wizard Medicine
In-Reply-To: <f0501040db8850157c17a@[199.174.15.41]>
Message-ID: <a3ovfj+nm39@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34685

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jennifer Boggess Ramon <boggles at e...>
wrote:
> At 1:40 AM +0000 2/5/02, tex23236 wrote:
> >Wizard medicine doesn't seem to have kept up with Wizard cooking
> >and transportation.
> 
> Who needs transportation when you can Apparate?  And those who
don't 
> Apparate have brooms, Portkeys, and the Floo network.

Yes, Apparation is a form of transportation.  There's also the Knight
Bus.

> >Mrs. Crouch died of cancer
> Where does it say that?  Crouch Jr. only says she was dying, not
what 
> of.  At any rate, she died in Azkaban, far from any treatment at
all, 
> wizard or Muggle.
> 
You're right. Must have read cancer into the stated teminal illness.
Still, it would seem unusual that such illness (other than entropy) 
would stalk witches without a treatment.  In short, Mrs. Crouch 
simply dying before her time needs more explanation than we get, 
IMHO.


> >and Mrs Riddle died
> >in childbirth.
> 
> In a Muggle Hospital around the 1930s.  If she'd been in a
wizarding 
> hospital, Riddle wouldn't have ended up in a Muggle orphanage.
> 
Hmmm... Okay, I do wonder how she happened to be cut off from
the Wizard world.  Actually, I figure a witch's womb to be Wizard 
Space, so she wouldn't need maternity robes.

> I'm not at all sure one can Accio through skin; if you could,
what's 
> to stop a Death Eater from accio'ing your heart from your chest?
> 
True, it wouldn't be the accio that we know and love.  But I imagine
Wizard surgery would be something similar.  Something like what
Lockheart used to remove Harry's arm bone might work for removing
cancer or an appendix, while cauterizing blood vessels.  The Wizard
version of a Caesarean section would be even more tricky but 
possible.

As for Wizards using it to kill, yes, it would require blocking in a
duel.

tex





From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Tue Feb  5 16:10:44 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 16:10:44 -0000
Subject: Mrs Riddle? (WAS Re: Wizard Medicine)
In-Reply-To: <a3nd6i+6tvg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3p064+jjtm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34686

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" <jbryson at r...> wrote:
> Wizard medicine doesn't seem to have kept up with Wizard cooking 
> and transportation.  Mrs. Crouch died of cancer and Mrs Riddle died 
> in childbirth.  You'd think a midwitch would have done an accio when
> trouble started. (Yes, yes, not that simple, I know.) Seems a 
medical 
> version accio would also have taken care of Mrs. Crouch's cancers,
>  too.

I had thought Riddle's mother died in the Muggle world. BTW, has 
anyone else noticed how similar this is to Oliver Twist. For those who 
aren't familiar with it :-), Oliver's mother dies giving birth to him 
in the poor house, and he is raised in an orphanages/workhouses for 
many years till he escapes, and discovers his family heritage at the 
end of the novel. It gets more interesting, imho, that Oliver was the 
product of a love affair between this young woman and already married 
man. I've heard many people suggest that we only hear the sanitized 
version, and very possibly, Tom's parents were never married, making 
abandonment so much easier, and explaining why the orphanage didn't 
just try to track down the dead woman's husband. 

However, why would she have died in the Muggle world in the 
firstplace? She had obviously not only been abandoned by her 
husband/lover, but by her wizard family. Two reasons could suffice.

1. If there never was a marriage, the family might have ostracized her 
for her deviation from their moral code.
2. Being pure-blood wizards, they might have been disgusted by her 
marrying a Muggle.

I remember once hypothesizing that his mother was a Potter by birth, 
thus explaining his hatred towards that family. :-) It would explain 
the similarities between Harry and Voldemort well enough, while not 
relating them too closely, and keeping the relation on James's side of 
the family (where the resemblance is). 

Eileen




From Edblanning at aol.com  Tue Feb  5 16:11:58 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:11:58 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Good characters/Snapers vs. Sirists
Message-ID: <95.1714c62a.29915e4e@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34687

In a message dated 05/02/02 14:33:58 GMT Standard Time, cindysphynx at home.com 
writes:


> Seriously, though, the level of affection for Snape among fans is 
> still a mystery to me.  I can understand thinking Snape plays an 
> important role in the books, and I can understand thinking that he is 
> interesting and mysterious.  But that's as far as I can go.  
> 

Well, it puzzles me too, as one afflicted by this peculiar disorder.

I suspect this question is strongly linked to your one about good characters, 

>How is 
>it that an author can have her Good characters behave in these 
>morally questionable ways and still remain Good in the readers' minds 

Which in turn raises the issue of whether we can categorise people or 
characters as 'good' or 'bad'. I would say that we can't. We can be on the 
side of good or evil, but many of our actions are somewhere on a sliding 
scale in between these two absolutes.

Interesting characters are grey, not black and white (someone noted the only 
time people on this list got enthusiastic about Dumbledore was his 'grey 
moment' : the gleam of triumph). In books, we are not attracted to out and 
out goody goodies: they tend to be rather flat and boring. The interest (for 
adults at least) in JKR's characters is their 'greyness'.

In life too, unfortunately, conventional goodness tends to be perceived as 
rather boring. Our newspapers are filled with the bad or the scandalous much 
more than they are with ordinary every day goodness.

Most of us are a bit grey too. Hopefully, the balance is tipped in favour of 
the good, but how many of us have never *wanted* to do something that was 
wrong? When good charaters do something bad, perhaps in a way it's a sort of 
catharsis: we identify with the essential goodness of the character whilst 
somehow, perhaps only subliminally, relating to the 'bad' action. Perhaps 
we're too virtuous to hex Draco et al and walk over them, but hey, wouldn't 
it feel good if we did? We would never feed tongue-tongue toffee to 
unsuspecting Dudley, would never take such easy advantage of a child, but at 
a visceral level, wouldn't we love to do it? Revenge is a very fundamental 
human emotion. Perhaps not noble, perhaps often sublimated, but it's there. 
One of the uses of literature is to let us get in touch with and deal with 
all those murky emotions that we'd rather ignore whilst we're getting on with 
our respectable lives.

Attraction to Snape is perhaps similar. It's a bit dangerous. Not the sort of 
thing you'd probably do in real life. His character is *very* grey. But 
'baddies' (for want of a better word), as others have noted, do seem to have 
some kind of intrinsic attraction. Snape has been *such* a baddie, but now, 
funadamentally he's not . It's sort of a safe way to have a flirtation with 
evil . Bit like kissing a de-fanged vampire, perhaps.

I think I'd better stop there.

Eloise . Off to cover up her soul, which is feeling a trifle over-exposed.


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




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Tue Feb  5 16:26:11 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 16:26:11 -0000
Subject: Snapers or Sirists
In-Reply-To: <a3nkg4+fg6r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3p133+n31u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34688

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "anmsmom333" <anmsmom333 at c...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" <Zarleycat at a...> wrote:
>Besides, though there is no canon evidence to support my
> theory...there is no canon evidence to prove Sirius meant to really
> "physically hurt" Severus. 

Ummmmm... sending someone down a tunnel, at the end of which is a 
werewolf, and making no attempt to influence the outcome of the 
situation. I may be quick to jump to conclusions, but it looks like 
canonical evidence to me. It was James Potter, not Sirius, who tried 
to change things for the better. 

Now, as I've said before, maybe Sirius wanted Snape bitten and made a 
werewolf. Not justifiable, but in a certain situation, you could see a 
desperate and not very prudent Sirius deciding that it had to happen 
to save his friend. Check message 33857: " New Theory about Why Sirius 
Played Trick on Snape", and there's an acronym, "

It's my favourite theory and has allowed me to get on to liking 
Sirius. I couldn't take him being completely malevolent for no reason, 
or completely immature and braindead for no reason, but doing 
something drastically wrong with good motives... I'm a sucker for 
that.

> Theresa (who wholeheartily agrees with Sirius fans that he is dead
> sexy and would run off with him in a heartbeat but is still 
intrigued
> by Severus but would only "be friends" with him.)

Keep Sirius to yourself, and the post-tramautic issues, as well. :-) 
Though I agree about Severus, provided he is capable of friendship, 
the only HP wizard who has enough sense for my taste is Remus Lupin. 

Eileen




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Tue Feb  5 16:43:36 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 16:43:36 -0000
Subject: Poor little Harry/certain room/wizard medicine/good characters
In-Reply-To: <20020205055645.11731.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net>
Message-ID: <a3p23o+rhbt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34689

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Vicky DeGroote <degroote at a...> wrote:

> As a mom I have to take a moment...Thinking about Harry being so 
neglected, abused...especially at a very young age...well, I just get 
very choked up thinking about 1 year old Harry trying to be cuddly or 
>playful etc and just getting ignored or worse!  I have an 
almost-3-year-old and to think about her being potty trained by that 
horrible Petunia...I can just hardly stand it!  Some of you may be 
>chuckling a bit, but it's really the hardest part of it all for me to 
>think about.  

Harry's survival of this abuse is really amazing. People can rebound 
from situations worse that the Dursley household, but I very much 
doubt that they are like Harry while still in the situation. One of my 
favourite books when I was younger was a novel called, "I am David". 
At the time, I didn't understand the plot entirely, but looking back, 
I'll guess that David escaped from a prison camp in some Communist 
regime, and began his track across Europe to find his mother. What 
impressed me about the book then, and I really should look for it to 
read it again, was the realism of David's way of thinking. He did not 
act like an ordinary kid. He is extremely paranoid, he does not expect 
help, and he doesn't even know how to become a part of society. While 
Harry has some characteristics caused by his history (the avoidance of 
questions, for example), he seems largely unaffected and is still 
trusting after his experience. 

Which leads me to wonder. Certainly, something of Lily and James's 
love stayed with Harry. Certainly, the Dursleys' current behaviour is 
so bad that wouldn't be the end of the story.

But I wonder. First of all, there's that reference in "Prisoner of 
Azkaban" to Harry playing musical chairs at a family party, and Aunt 
Marge tripping him with a cane so Dudley could win. But why was Harry 
playing musical chairs? It doesn't square completely with their 
current attitude towards him. Could the Dursleys' treatment of Harry 
have been better in the past? Never loving, of course. But not quite 
child abuse, as it seems to have become? Maltreatment of him would 
have increased as he grew older, as they unconsciously began to 
realize that he was a much better person than their own Dudley (the 
Cinderella complex), and he began to remind them more of his parents. 
Uncle Vernon's crusade against his untidy hair is obviously (to us) 
not a result of any neat-freakness, but of his hate for James Potter. 
Could Harry have picked up any mannerisms(some of these things are 
genetics) from James and Lily? If he's like many kids, his eyes didn't 
start up green. And hair grows darker as one grows up. 

So, perhaps it wasn't always as bad as we now see it.

Eileen




From cindysphynx at home.com  Tue Feb  5 16:50:17 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 16:50:17 -0000
Subject: More On Snape's Backstory
Message-ID: <a3p2g9+avcb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34690

Tabouli has already cracked the mystery of why Snape hates 
Harry. ::waves to Tabouli who is working diligently to keep the Good 
Ship L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. off of the rocks::  

One of the biggest remaining mysteries about Snape is why he decided 
to work for Voldemort, and equally important, why he decided to come 
back to Dumbledore.  Did Snape really, deep down, believe in the 
things the DEs believe (purity of blood, etc.)?  Did he just want to 
be on the winning team and wrongly predict that Volemort would win?  
What on earth was Snape thinking?

OK, here's a theory (using as much canon as I can), and it all turns 
on The Prank.

Snape is a Hogwarts Slytherin, and he shows up knowing a lot of 
advanced curses.  Snape isn't very popular with the student body at 
large due to his greasy hair and tendency to glide and prowl.  But 
Snape gets on well within Slytherin and with his head of house, 
Karkaroff, who has, uh, taken an interest in young Severus.  Snape's 
buddies are all Slytherins who eventually turn out to be DEs.  Snape, 
however, isn't so sure he wants to go that route, and he is still 
deciding what his future holds, despite Karkaroff's attempts to win 
Snape over by providing, uh, wine.

Meanwhile, the Marauders are making Snape's life miserable.  They 
bewitch parchment to insult Snape.  They torment him about his greasy 
hair.  They snicker about how his talents are in potions, which is 
for wimps, as they pull off flashy Transfiguration tricks.  Sirius is 
handsome and popular, while James is the revered Quiddich Jock.  The 
two of them get away with all manner of rule-breaking, right under 
Snape's hooked nose.  Lupin is good at DADA and loyal to his new 
friends, so he can defend against any curse or hex Snape might think 
of trying.  Peter doesn't have much going for him, but he sneaks 
around spying on Snape, telling James and Sirius the best way to 
torment Snape.  Snape doesn't complain to Dumbledore, of course, but 
stews silently, prowling around hoping to catch the Marauders doing 
something worthy of expulsion, coping the best he can.

Then Sirius plays The Prank, almost getting Snape killed, and scaring 
the pants off of Snape.  Snape goes to Dumbledore, figuring he 
finally has the goods on 3 of the 4 Marauders.  Sirius should be 
expelled for The Prank and the rule-breaking that led to it.  James 
clearly knew about it, and should be expelled.  Lupin was in on it 
too, Snape figures, and Lupin should be expelled on general principle 
because werewolves have no place at Hogwarts.  

Snape tells this to Dumbledore, demanding an apology and hoping for 
expulsion.  Dumbledore, however, wants to protect Lupin and doesn't 
want everyone knowing that Dumbledore admitted a werewolf to Hogwarts 
and cooked up this ineffective Whomping Willow protection.  So what 
happens?  Snape gets no apology.  Maybe there's a detention for 
Sirius and a few points from Gryffindor.  That's it.  To add insult 
to injury, *Snape* is sworn to secrecy about Lupin's werewolf 
condition.  The Marauders are free to smirk at Snape and disrespect 
him as though nothing happened, and Snape can't do a thing about 
it.  ::shrugs off mental image of Sirius howling like a werewolf 
everytime Snape passes in the halls::

This is just too much for Snape to take.  Dumbledore has shown who he 
favors and where his loyalties lie -- the Gryffindors and the 
Marauders.  This solidifies Snape's relationships with the DE 
Slytherins and slams the door on any possibility that Snape will join 
Dumbledore's team.  Figuratively speaking, Snape finally accepts 
Karkaroff's wine.  :-)  Upon graduation, Snape really has nowhere 
else to go other than join up with the DEs.  He certainly isn't going 
to join up with Dumbledore, and he trusts the judgment of his fellow 
Slytherins, like, uh, the Lestranges, Travers, Mulciber, Karkaroff, 
Rookwood, Crouch Jr.  Snape figures joining the DEs will give him the 
two things he would never get from Dumbledore:  power and respect.

Once Snape becomes a DE, he finds it is not all it was cracked up to 
be.  It isn't the purity of blood issue or the muggle-torturing that 
bothers him.  Snape is sufficiently mean-spirited to tolerate these 
things.  Instead, Snape discovers that Voldemort really is the Prince 
of Lies.  Although Voldemort and the DEs promised Snape power and 
prestige, Snape is just a journeyman DE, outside the outer outskirts 
of Voldemort's inner circle, hardly in a position of power.  Snape 
figures that there is nothing to be done about this, so he resolves 
to just live with it and keep his head down.

Eventually, Snape is given an important DE task to perform:  get some 
intelligence on the Potters.  Although Snape would dearly love to get 
even with James, he has divided loyalty because of his affection for 
Lily.  Also, Snape really has no way to accomplish this task because 
he was never really close to James.  Snape doesn't come up with 
anything.  Voldemort, believing that Snape isn't trying hard enough 
and needs some motivation, punishes Snape with several protracted 
Cruciatus Curses and a substantial tongue-lashing.

And that is the moment when Snape decides to defect back to 
Dumbledore's camp.  He sees that he will never amount to anything as 
a DE, and unlike Wormtail, he has enough pride to be unwilling to 
tolerate constant verbal and physical abuse.  At this point, however, 
Snape only has one thing anyone would want:  the trust of the DEs and 
Voldemort.  And the only person who would want what Snape has is 
Dumbledore.  So Snape goes back to Dumbledore, admits his error, begs 
forgiveness and agrees to spy on Voldemort.

Before Dumbledore will take Snape back, however, Snape has to prove 
his loyalty.  Dumbledore wasn't born yesterday, there is a war on, 
and there is steel under his fatherly exterior. Dumbledore isn't 
going to trust Snape until Snape does something that puts Snape at 
personal risk and proves Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore, something a 
Voldemort spy would never do.  Dumbledore tells Snape that Snape must 
do more than just name the names of DEs.  He must help apprehend 
these DEs.  Dumbledore proposes that Snape must arrange an ambush of 
as many DEs as possible.  The only DEs that Snape can really deliver 
to Dumbledore are Snape's old gang of Slytherins.  

Snape agrees.  What choice does Snape have, really?  If he somehow 
gets Dumbledore to accept him back, Snape won't be safe anywhere but 
Hogwarts with his old DE friends and Voldemort all hunting for him.  
So Snape lures his old friends (Travers, Mulciber, Dolohoff, Rosier, 
Crouch Jr., the Lestranges) to a trap in which a certain talented 
Auror (Moody) kills some and takes the rest into custody.  Moody 
becomes famous for his exploits in this ambush, making his taunts of 
Snape in GoF all the more mean-spirited.  

Snape continues spying after this ambush, telling Voldemort and the 
DEs that he only just escaped the ambush, and finding his own 
position in Voldemort's camp greatly enhanced now that Voldemort has 
lost some members of his inner circle.  Unfortunately, Snape's 
promotion occurs too late for Snape to learn that Wormtail is a DE 
prepared to betray the Potters.  

As for Sirius, Snape despises him and always will.  Not because 
Sirius wouldn't apologize for The Prank.  Not because Sirius wasn't 
nice during their Hogwarts days.  Not because Snape is jealous.  No, 
Snape despises Sirius because The Prank was the catalyst for Snape's 
decision to become a DE and all of the pain Snape suffered as a 
result.

Well, it's a theory, anyway.  
  
Cindy 




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Tue Feb  5 17:09:51 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 17:09:51 -0000
Subject: Snapers vs. Sirists; Canon Snape
In-Reply-To: <a3ovag+dfpr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3p3kv+f367@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34691

More examples of Snape Bravery and Talent

Bravery:

"At great personal cost," said Dumbledore. I don't think he's lying. 
Arguments that this is not especially brave because he had a duty to 
make up for all the evil thing he's done, are disgenuous, to the say 
the least. Since when was performing a difficult duty not brave?

Talent:

Disposes of both Lupin and Black in seconds. That Lockhart accident 
was no fluke. 

Manages to keep Harry on his broom in PS/SS against Quirrel's curse. 
Now, one might ask, "How do we know this takes a lot of talent? 
Perhaps Quirrel's curse was very weak." Yet, this cannot be the case. 
Are we supposed to believe that no-one else in the stands, or the 
referee, would have cared to do anything to help Harry if something 
easy could be done? No, I think this is proof positive that Snape is 

Supposed Lack of Talent:

Didn't see the attack from the trio coming. He did happen to think, 
quite reasonably, that they were ultimately on his side, right? 

Eileen

PS Where do people get the impression that no-one learns anything in 
Snape's class. I had always thought the opposite. 




From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com  Tue Feb  5 17:14:34 2002
From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:14:34 EST
Subject: Snape's knowledge of curses
Message-ID: <196.1e8da17.29916cfa@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34692

A lot of people have been using Snape's pre-Hogwarts knowledge of curses as a 
strike against him. Well, I think this can be turned into a strike in his 
favour. True, he is equipt with some nasty curses, but he is also equipt with 
the counter-curses. Take Quirrell's broom jinx for example. Hargid says 
something along the lines of 'Only a powerful dark wizard could do that to a 
broom'. Well, it would probably take a powerful counter jinx to fight it. 
Snape, probably knowing the "bucking-broom" jinx, also knows how to counter 
it. He may have even been the only one at the Quidditch match to recognize it 
(depending on if Quirrell was strong enough to keep going with 2 or more 
wizards doing a counter curse) and fight it. 

One small canon example, I know, but it proves that knowledge does come in 
handy ^^

~Cassie-(sorry if this was mentioned before, but there's been so many Snape 
discussions as of late that it's so hard to search!) 



From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Feb  5 17:17:41 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 17:17:41 -0000
Subject: Snapers vs. Sirists; Canon Snape
In-Reply-To: <a3p3kv+f367@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3p43l+7ijp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34693

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> More examples of Snape Bravery and Talent

<snip>

> Manages to keep Harry on his broom in PS/SS against Quirrel's curse. 
> Now, one might ask, "How do we know this takes a lot of talent? 
> Perhaps Quirrel's curse was very weak." Yet, this cannot be the
case. 
> Are we supposed to believe that no-one else in the stands, or the 
> referee, would have cared to do anything to help Harry if something 
> easy could be done? No, I think this is proof positive that Snape is 

Not only that, but Snape performs that countercurse *without using his
wand*.  Not bad for a guy whose specialty is potions.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  5 16:15:01 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 16:15:01 -0000
Subject: Eureka! Snape and the Marauder's Map
In-Reply-To: <a3me00+krrk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3p0e5+nmh9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34694

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> 
> I believe I have solved the mystery of Snape's behavior when he 
> interrogates Harry about the Marauder's Map in PoA. That is, if 
> Snape knew something about "the manufacturers", why didn't he 
> question Lupin more directly?
> 
> <theory>
> I am kicking myself, because I should have realized this as soon 
> as I finished GoF. The name Snape recognizes from the Map is 
> *Wormtail*. He doesn't know it from Hogwarts, he knows it from 
> being a Death Eater, and (this is the kicker) he thinks "Wormtail" 
> is Voldemort's code name for the traitor  *Sirius Black*.  

Yes!  LV does consistently call Peter "Wormtail."  If he does in GoF, 
why wouldn't he have done so in earlier years.  Snape figured out 
that "Wormtail", whoever he is, has given LV information that only 
someone CLOSE to the Potters could have.  Snape already "knows" that 
Sirius is capable of murder, so he assumes that "Wormtail" must be 
Sirius.

Snape doesn't call Lupin to his office because he knew Lupin was 
Moony, but rather because  (A) he IS the DADA teacher and this 
map "is full of dark magic" and/or (B) Lupin was friends with Sirius, 
may still be helping Sirius, and may recognize the name "Wormtail" as 
being Sirius.  Snape wants to see how he reacts.

>Later Snape finds the activated Map in Lupin's office, the map which 
> proudly bears the name of someone Snape knows to be  Death 
> Eater.  It's obvious to Snape that Lupin is in league with Black, 
> either as ally or dupe. He runs out to the Shack, and discovers 
> that Sirius has hostages. Then the kids start telling him some 
> wild story about Pettigrew. Snape is in no mood to listen, and 
> there's no time. Lupin could turn into a bloodthirsty monster at 
> any moment and he hasn't had his potion. *Of course* Snape 
> ties  Lupin up.  It's quite sensible of him.

Yes!  It is!
> 
> But Snape doesn't behave like a reasonable man, and this, I 
> believe, is why. Suppose Snape is the spy who revealed to 
> Dumbledore that someone close to the Potters was giving 
> information to Voldemort. Snape told Dumbledore he suspected 
> this person, known only as Wormtail, was in reality Sirius Black.  
> Snape has believed all these years that James chose to 
> disregard this warning and trust Sirius anyway. His berating 
> Harry for arrogance in the office gives some basis for this. Then 
> he's told that James actually did switch Secret Keepers, and 
> picked Pettigrew who really was the traitor. So it's  all Snape's 
> fault. Snape can no more admit to guilt than Lupin admit to 
> anger. Snape goes into hysterical denial and no wonder.

I've always thought Snape was the one who warned Dumbledore that LV 
was after the Potters.  It fits perfectly with his being in James's 
debt for saving his life and wanting to repay that debt so he could 
go back to hating him guilt-free.  The fact that he turned spy aginst 
LV with this crucial information and then it failed to save James 
must have been gnawing at him for years.  And yes, Snape's statement 
in the Shreiking Shack to Harry, "You'd have died like your father, 
too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black--"  definitely 
could indicate that he not only warned Dumbledore and James about a 
spy, but that his warning specificly named Sirius.

Great theory, Pippin!

"jklb66"




From rose at swicegood.com  Tue Feb  5 14:51:37 2002
From: rose at swicegood.com (roseswicegood)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 14:51:37 -0000
Subject: What Did Snape Do In GoF?
In-Reply-To: <a3n8v2+pla7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3orhp+3sbl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34695

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> Snape will need to embellish the facts a bit ("How did you expect 
me 
> to come to the graveyard -- you know I can't apparate off the 
> Hogwarts grounds, and it would have blown my cover had I been seen 
> sprinting off the grounds in the middle of the Third Task").  As 
for 
> Dumbledore's outing Snape in the Pensieve, Snape can just say this 
is 
> proof of how well he has managed to position himself in 
Dumbledore's 
> camp -- the old man has no clue that Snape is still working for the 
> DEs.  
> 
> 
Hi!  I decided not to lurk anymore--hope I haven't jumped in too soon.

What of the relationship between MadEye/Barty and Snape?
Barty knows which of the Death Eaters were loyal, at least to a 
degree. He was in a position to test Snape's loyalty.  Did Barty at 
least believe Snape was still loyal?  Why then didn't Voldemort use 
Snape for his ends instead of MadEye/Barty?  Barty could have 'owled' 
V to let him know Snape was there.  Do I ramble?  sorry.

One more question--do you think Snape ever leaves the Hogwarts 
grounds?  I don't think so myself, as he is well-protected at 
Hogwarts. It would seem to confirm that Snape is afraid of his 
treachery to V and DEs.


"roseswicegood"




From slytherin_belle at hotmail.com  Tue Feb  5 14:55:10 2002
From: slytherin_belle at hotmail.com (Evil Flame)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 08:55:10 -0600
Subject: Subject: RE: Women's Institute/ Snape's Hair/ Snapers or Sirusists
Message-ID: <DAV48dDW6lCPx33E1io000002e8@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34696

catlady_de_los_angeles wrote:
<<It is a club for housewives that
at one time was common in rural England (I don't know at all about
Scotland). I can't really think of a USA equivalent: Eastern Star and
the women's auxiliary of the Grange are different by their connection
to men's clubs, and the Women's Alliances of the various churches are
different by being denominational. John Walton's grandmother was
involved with Women's Institute, maybe he can explain it better.>>

The American equivalent would be the Extension Homemakers. (which recently changed it's name to something more politically correct, but I can't remember it.)  It's basically a lot of housewives and grandmothers that get together and have meetings and such about... I couldn't tell you and I attended meetings with my mother as a kid.  But they are a national organization and not affiliated with anyone else like Eastern Star or those people.  


*****

rosenatti wrote:

<<I've always imagined it like Harry's haircut growing back in the
night: Severus washes his hair thoroughly every night, with the same
scouring soap he cleans his cauldrons with, but an hour later his
ineffable nature has asserted itself through his natural magic and
it's greasy enough to leave the pillowcase translucent.  (Perhaps he
stalks the night because it's easier than cleaning the sheets every
morning . . .)>>

Here's a thought that I haven't seen before, but quite possibly have just missed.  What's to say that his hair isn't greasy with some sort of styling product to keep it under control.  Like he'd have a raging afro if he left it alone?

*****

Caleb wrote:
<< I think cutting Snape some slack for being a DE,
because everybody makes mistakes in there life. But
after saying that I must say this. Snapers you should
take a look hard look at Snape, and drop all the stuff
from the fanfics. You will find that he is big bully,
or a incompetent spy. He lords over the Gryffindors,
or should I say Neville Longbottom. Snape takes a sick
attitude to Neville, and it is made worst by the way
his parents were tortured to past the point of madness.
To say that the Longbottom's got what was coming to
them is just sick, and that has been said.
Ps I think that I will find out if I am flameproof or not.>>


Truthfully, you could be right. But, if you strip the character down to just what is in the book, you have many unanswered questions about Snape, that can't all be answered by 'He's a big slimy git.'  He's a character that I get the impression that no matter what she has planned for him, JKR just doesn't much like on a personal level. Sure he does things that I don't approve of, but he's still a character that I find appealing and want to know why he is the way he is.  (And fan fic is for flights of fancy and exploring different ideas, IMO.)


~Evil Flame





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





From ritadarling at ivillage.com  Tue Feb  5 16:43:46 2002
From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (Rita F)
Date: 5 Feb 2002 08:43:46 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snapers vs. Sirists; Canon Snape
Message-ID: <20020205164346.13867.cpmta@c006.snv.cp.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34697

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020205/a9212f0d/attachment.ksh>

From huntleyl at mssm.org  Tue Feb  5 17:19:22 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:19:22 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape
References: <a3lg4i+sp83@eGroups.com> <f0501040db8850157c17a@[199.174.15.41]>
Message-ID: <004901c1ae69$40b223a0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 34698

    Okay.  There has been allot of discussion about Snape since I've been a member of this list (which has been, oh, a good two days now), and I would like to add my own two cents about just why I really don't like the man.

    But first a quick note:  Devin's post earlier made me smile.  I understand that so much.  I love to debate, but at the same time I feel so incredibly..ahh, I can't think of a word to describe it..but it's like my heart might burst.  Anyway, back to the *point*.

    First of all, I don't really "get" the mindset of those with a sexual attraction to Snape.  Of course, I have never read Snape-oriented fanfiction, which I assume portrays him in a more sex-god light than canon.  While I never bought that he was THE BAD GUY in SS, I still had a vague dislike for him.  Somehow I knew he couldn't be the pervading evil in the plotline, but he still managed to rub my fur the wrong way.  He was pretty much intensely unfair, which really got to me.  I have often imagined myself, in Harry's shoes, jumping up and strangling the man as he made some rude, petty remark - either that or threatening to get him fired by complaining to the school board (while this is probably not possible in JKR's world, it seems to me that any teacher in a real-life school who acted the way Snape did towards the students would be out of a job so fast it would make their head spin) I've met nasty teachers before, but most at least *try* to foster the desire to learn in their students and provide their pupils with a good adult role model.  Anyway, I didn't like him, but I certainly didn't wish a horrible death upon him - he was just one of those unpleasant people that everyone has to put up with.

    My attitude towards him, however, changed dramatically in GoF.  WHAT ABOUT WHAT HE SAID TO HERMIONE?!...when her teeth were enlarged...he said something to the effect of, "I see no difference."

MY GOD.

    No one else finds this particularly evil, as far as I can tell.  Everyone cites his former DE days, his penchant for picking on Neville (which in and of itself is inexcusable) -- but those words he said in GoF -- that was just unforgivable in my mind. ^_~  I don't know, maybe I just have a soft spot for Hermione, but I will never forgive Snape for that.  There was no reason for it, excepting pure cruelty, pettiness, and the like.  *shakes head* He's not a nice man.  He's not evil, but he's not a good person.  

    I don't care about any dark, troubled childhood or inner goodness that he may show in the world of fandom *or* future canon.  People are who they are because of *what they choose*.  Snape *chooses* to be cruel, petty, rude, and generally mean - and for that, in my mind, there is no excuse. It is his *choice* to use his power as a teacher over his students in order to verbally assault them constantly without risking any revenge on their part - this is cowardice in the extreme.  Under NO circumstances is it (IMO) acceptable to attack those who have no way to defend themselves.  Brave?  I can't help but scoff at this.  Bravery isn't just how you behave in extreme situations or your ability to keep your nerve under duress.  More importantly, it's how you live your day to day life.  No one who can take pleasure in beating down someone defenseless like Neville or any of the students, for that matter, will *ever* be considered brave - at least by me.  It's just sick - akin to pulling the wings off flys or shooting mockingbirds.  As a teacher, Snape has an extreme degree of power over the students - which he abuses in a fairly sickening way.  The noble, brave, etc. etc. way to use this power would be as Minerva does - she expects allot of respect from the students, but she also does her best to respect *them* and help them learn and grow as people.  It's like Sirius said of Mr. Crouch.  If you want to see what a person's really like, take a look at how they treat their inferiors, NOT their equals.  

    I don't really hate Snape, it just upsets me when people try *so* hard to excuse him into being a good person, when, in reality, who says he even *wants* to be a nice person, underneath?  Also, this entire post has been quite rant-y.  I apologize.
   
laura


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





From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Tue Feb  5 17:30:26 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 17:30:26 -0000
Subject: Snape's many good points (and Sirius' many bad points)
In-Reply-To: <a3ovag+dfpr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3p4ri+g1kb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34699

Continuing the Snaper/Sirist debate:

First, the topic of Snape's (many!) good points.

I've already said quite a lot about this in post #33370, and don't 
want to clutter the list by repeating it all.  Also, Marina has said a 
lot about Snape's brilliance and bravery.  But, I didn't say much 
about Snape's brilliance in post #33370, because I thought it was so 
obvious.  So, let me let me add a few points that may not have been 
made before.

Brilliance and talent:
  It's not just Snape's ability to make Wolfbane Potion and Mandrake 
Restorative Draught that counts in Snape's favor here.  (By the way, I 
expect Mandrake Draught *is* hard to make; otherwise, why would 
Lockhart brag about his alleged ability to make it?) It's also the 
fact that Snape was made Professor of an important subject, and Master 
of Slytherin house, at a very young age.  I don't buy the argument 
that Dumbledore gave Snape a professorship just to give him sanctuary 
against the DE's.  First, as we've seen, there's no evidence that the 
DE's are out to get Snape; they may think he's really on their side 
still.  And, I don't think Dumbledore would gave out a professorship 
on that grounds.  In other cases where Dumbledore seems to have given 
a position as a favor (Hagrid, Filch) it was more of a manual labor 
position.  Dumbledore could have made Snape "Assistant Caretaker" or 
something, if Snape just needed sanctuary. 

But wait, there's more! 
I think it's no coincidence that JKR always calls Snape the Potions 
*Master*, a title that she never uses for Binns, Flitwick, Hagrid, 
etc.  Only Dumbledore and McGonagall also get called Master or 
Mistress.  (By the way, in the Japanese translation, I believe those 
three get called "Professor", while the other faculty just get called 
"teacher.") And as others here have noted, it's McGonagall and Snape 
that Dumbledore relies on the help him when there's a crises, not the 
other faculty.  

But that's not all!
We're only discussed Snape's ability in Potions.  What about his Dark 
Arts skills?  (Remember, we're talking about whether he's talented 
here, not whether he's *nice*.)  About the first thing that's ever 
said about Snape is Percy's comment, "He knows an lot about the Dark 
Arts."  And of course, Sirius says, "Snape knew more curses when he 
arrived at school than half the seventh years."  (These quotes are 
from memory, but they're pretty close to the originals.) These skills 
are quite different from knowing about Potions; we never see a Potion 
mentioned in any Dark Arts class. 

And if you order now, you get a ginsu knife!
I think spying on Voldy and surviving requires brillance.  Voldy has 
the ability to detect lies.  For a spy to answer Voldy's questions 
without lying and without giving himself away would take skill indeed. 
     

Bravery:
  In addition to his other brave acts, we know that Snape is doing 
something quite dangerous at the end of GoF.  In fact, it's dangerous 
enough to make Dumbledore visibly worried about Snape, and Dumbledore 
being visibly worried is rare.  
   Also, throughout GoF, Snape remains quite calm about Voldemort's 
gathering strength, while Karkaroff is reduced to a bowl of quivering 
jelly.  ("Then flee, Igor, flee.  I will make your excuses," Snape 
says, or something similar.) 

While I'm defending Snape, Cassie mentioned the incident with 
Neville's toad.  There is no question that Neville was scared, and 
that is bad.  However, I'm not sure Trevor the toad was in any danger. 
Remember, in the Potterverse, there are generic antidotes to poisons. 
Futhermore, Snape would have known what possible poisons Neville could 
have come up with, so he would have known the ingredients in neville's 
potion.  It's quite possible Snape had an antidote ready, in case 
Trevor got sick. 

By the way, this in on a different topic, but Pippin wondered if Snape 
had convinced James that Sirius was the spy, therefore causing James 
to pick Peter as the Scret-keeper. No, we know that Sirius himself was 
the one who convinced James to switch secret-keepers; Sirius says it 
was his idea to have Peter be the secret-keeper.  


Ok, now on to Sirius' many bad points.

A lot of people here have given various excuses for "The Prank."  
However, I don't see the prank on Snape as the worst thing Sirius has 
done.  Instead, I think it's his actions in PoA.  Sirius has this "I'm 
going to get revenge on Peter single-handedly, no matter what it 
costs" attitude that causes other people a lot of suffering.  People 
have said how Snape scares the students -- what about Sirius?  The 
students think a murderer is in the school, and Ron thinks Sirius 
tried to stab him.  Because of Sirius, there's Dementors at the school 
all year, who scare all the kids, make Harry faint, depress Hagrid, 
and try to give Harry "The Kiss."  Think of all the punishment Neville 
gets when Sirius steals his passwords -- he suffers for a lot longer 
than from any punishment Snape ever gave him.  The whole wizarding 
world is terrified, with kids in London not being allowed out alone.  
No work is getting done at the ministry. Even the muggles are scared. 
And, Sirius could have avoided all this, just by sending Dumbledore an 
owl saying "Check out Ron Weasley's rat!" 

If it's OK for Sirius to injure and terrify people, why is it so awful 
for Snape to be snippy and threaten students with detention?  Anyway, 
Sirius did more than cause fear.  He slashed the Fat Lady for no 
reason, and she is discribed as being quite traumatized by it.  And he 
broke Ron's leg, and apparently never apologized.



And now, before we Snapers and Sirists come to cyber-blows, let me 
point out that I can see why a reader might like either, both, or 
neither character.  I think Snape is written somewhat inconsistently, 
as are all three of James' friends.  Is Sirius the half-mad slasher of 
PoA, or the reasonable, concerned godfather of GoF?  Is Snape the 
oh-so-cool master of snide remarks, or is he ranting with spit flying 
from his mouth?  Whether one likes these characters depends a lot on 
how one resolves the inconsistencies in the way they are written.  So, 
I hope no one will make too much of various readers' perferences for 
one character over the other.




From marybear82 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  5 18:05:05 2002
From: marybear82 at yahoo.com (Mary Shearer)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:05:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:  the Train Stomp -Fred & George as bullies
In-Reply-To: <a3oogo+pcos@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020205180505.59786.qmail@web14007.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34700


--- jklb66 <jklb66 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm going to go against the trend here and defend
> HRH, and even Fred 
> and George (despite their "adult" status), for
> hexing and then 
> stepping on Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle at the end of
> GoF.   I won't 
> excuse them because of the Slytherins insensitive
> comments about 
> Cedric (although that would have made me want to hex
> them too!) but 
> because the 3 Slytherins were standing there
> threatening the lives of 
> Harry, Hermione, and all of the Weasleys!
<snip passage quote>
> 
> This isn't an empty schoolboy threat.  The fathers
> of all 3 
> Slytherins in that doorway are DE's and will
> undoubtedly soon be 
> killing "Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers."

I'm glad someone else was brave enough to voice what
I'd been thinking all along. Malfoy soooo crossed the
line there.  Not a violent person by nature, I
nevertheless was oddly satisfied by this passage. 
These kids are crowing over the death of a classmate,
for heaven's sake! JKR's characters are nothing if not
human, and the emotional atmosphere is particularly
taut following recent events - especially for Harry
who's just come through Hell.  It stands to reason
that anger would get the better of Harry & Co. in this
instance - if it didn't, they would just be too good
to be true...but, of course, that is another
discussion thread. IMO, we cannot expect them to take
this one sitting down - it would be too out of
character.  This is not the first instance in which
our young friends have lost their tempers, and it will
be a mighty boring read if it is the last!  

-Mary, who thinks Draco is one-dimensional anyway, and
will probably not be hurt too badly by getting walked
on. As for hissing at Malcom, shame on you twins -
hope you didn't do it so he could could hear it.
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com



From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com  Tue Feb  5 18:22:09 2002
From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 12:22:09 -0600
Subject: Poor little Harry/good character
References: <a3p23o+rhbt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C6022D1.1DB0A0C6@kingwoodcable.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34701

lucky_kari wrote:

> Which leads me to wonder. Certainly, something of Lily and James's
> love stayed with Harry. Certainly, the Dursleys' current behaviour is
> so bad that wouldn't be the end of the story.

I don't think love is the only thing that saved Harry. Just who is Harry
hearing in his head when he throws off the imperious curse? There wasn't
a reference to Harry never hearing this voice before. I'm wondering if
Lily put more into Harry than just her love. Perhaps a guiding shadow of
her former self?

> But I wonder. First of all, there's that reference in "Prisoner of
> Azkaban" to Harry playing musical chairs at a family party, and Aunt
> Marge tripping him with a cane so Dudley could win. But why was Harry
> playing musical chairs? It doesn't square completely with their
> current attitude towards him. Could the Dursleys' treatment of Harry
> have been better in the past? Never loving, of course. But not quite
> child abuse, as it seems to have become? Maltreatment of him would
> have increased as he grew older, as they unconsciously began to
> realize that he was a much better person than their own Dudley (the
> Cinderella complex), and he began to remind them more of his parents.
> Uncle Vernon's crusade against his untidy hair is obviously (to us)
> not a result of any neat-freakness, but of his hate for James Potter.
> Could Harry have picked up any mannerisms(some of these things are
> genetics) from James and Lily? If he's like many kids, his eyes didn't
> start up green. And hair grows darker as one grows up.

I don't think it's so much that he started to look like James as much as
it is that "things" started to happen. Magic would happen
unintentionally. Vernon and Petunia knew exactly what was going on, but
Harry didn't. It could be the over the years, they grew more and more
discouraged that they couldn't get rid of the magic. I don't think they
ever treated him lovingly, but did have to take care of him. Can you
imagine what Petunia must have been thinking while changing Harry's
diaper? 

-Katze



From aiz24 at hotmail.com  Tue Feb  5 18:31:53 2002
From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 18:31:53 -0000
Subject: rumoured release dates book 5
In-Reply-To: <a3ovfj+j2ac@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3p8ep+9jud@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34702

laoisecronin wrote:

>   Can you tell everyone else what was said about release dates so 
we 
> could start a little happy dance of our own

A reliable-sounding rumor (how's that for an oxymoron?) was reported 
to The Leaky Cauldron on 1/29:

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2002_01_27_archive.html

Discussions of plans to camp out/picket/stage hunger strikes at 
publishers' headquarters, nuanced interpretations of the rumor's 
wording, establishment of betting pools, etc. should take place on 
OTChatter.

Amy Z




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  5 18:32:58 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 18:32:58 -0000
Subject: Sirius/Snape
In-Reply-To: <3C4D293F.24509.96B0AD3@localhost>
Message-ID: <a3p8gq+diea@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34703

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Fiat Incantatum" <fiatincantatum at a...> 
wrote:

> 
> He can't be a werewolf because he is available to take Lupin's DADA 
class 
> during the full moon.  If he had a potion that prevented the change 
entirely, 
> he could avoid having to teach two sets of classes once a month.  

So Lupin didn't get to bite him (thanks to James Potter). Just, well, 
if he DID...

Anyway, on 'trick', we don't know the whole story. Sirius told 
him 'how to get past the whomping willow' - and Snape went to figure 
out about Lupin. We also know that Sirius told James about having 
told Snape about the Willow - and that James saved Severus Snape.

What we don't know is:
Why Sirius told Snape about the Willow. Had Snape a 
potion/charm/other means to force him or not? Something that might 
have forced the matter out of Sirius but without Snape realising it 
(or not considering it) - something that Sirius was unable to resist.

So, we only know part of that story of youth - when Sirius was 16-17. 
Two, his 12 years in Azcaban- with dementors- are more than enough 
for that! Even half without dementors would be enough! It's over and 
well paid for.

His other, lesser crimes: Misuse of Muggle artifacts (flying 
motorcycle) - Arthur got a fine for his flying car... (is this the 
sort of thing that almost EVERYONE has, but only few get caught?)

Unregistered animagus: For Lupin to become one in the first place, 
then he didn't want Voldemort to find out, then he was in Azcaban, 
then avoiding authorities... Plus, his use of the ability is a good 
one, much unlike Rita Skeeter. Yet, if he gets free, he should 
registrate. The rat probably already TOLD VOldemort...

He made few bad decicions concerning Potters, but everyone makes 
mistakes...

All in all, Sirius has paid for /all/ wrongs he's done in his past 
plus the few breaking entries in full and over. He's also mature, 
loyal and truly cares for Harry.

Snape, then - he was a death-eater (and as one he's probably killed 
and tortured to get the MARK) and he got out of it with Dumbledore's 
help! He blames Harry/Sirius for getting away 'with everything' while 
that's what *he* did!

Why is *he* Neville's worst fear? Maybe Barty Crouch Jr. was *not* 
the one torturing poor Longbottoms, but that *Snape* did (at least 
another, Mrs. Longbottom, perhaps?) BC Jr. *had* enough crimes to 
earn a sentence, true, but might as well be *not* the one he was 
accused of. We've seen how Barty Crouch Sr. does "justice" - blames 
the first ones he sees (house-elf or kids that are hardly ABLE to do 
Morsmordre, even when he *knows* who really did it and how...) just 
to get SOMEONE convicted, never mind the truth...

His reaction to Neville's the boggart - compared to Lupin's when one 
student's worst fear was werewolf... No good! Not at all! An adult 
going about yelling at a student who already helds him as WORST FEAR, 
is just plain wrong. The fact that he's not breaking any written 
laws/rules just makes it worse (because there's nothing to get hold 
to) - and punishing Gryffindor students for an action of which 
Dumbledore might be GIVING points for if he knew about it, while 
leaving Slytherins alone...

Blaming Harry Potter for all that goes wrong, of things that 
obviously are NOT true...

Yet, for some reason Dumbledore *trusts* him! I can see why Harry, 
Sirius & co. don't, though but why does Dumbledore trust Snape?
Is there a Life-debt-bond between them?

If Snape saved Dumbledore's life, it would be enough reason for 
*Dumbledore* to trust him, but not enough for Snape to be really 
trustworthy - as he might have done it *in order to* get the trust of 
the Leader of the Light Side when he also has/had Voldemort's trust! 

If Dumbledore saved Snape - well, life-debt is ancient magic and 
Dumbledore would trust *that*. Also, Albus's eyes may well have 
ability to see the truth in people - if he bothers to use it! Then 
again, Dumbledore may just be trusting Snape simply because 
Voldemort's (and Grindelwalds?) weapon was *distrust* so he *trusts* 
simply to counter that! (and more ARE worth it than not)




From the_little_catboy at yahoo.ca  Tue Feb  5 18:37:14 2002
From: the_little_catboy at yahoo.ca (Caleb Williamson)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:37:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's many good points (and Sirius' many bad points)
In-Reply-To: <a3p4ri+g1kb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020205183714.2215.qmail@web11402.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34704

  I think calling Snape brave just because he turned
spy is not a good reason. We don't know why he did was
it the goodness of his heart(stopping to laugh) or was
he just caught and he turned spy to save his skin. And
by the way he didn't do such a great job. He couldnt
help save the Potters and/or the  Longbottoms.
Speaking of a Longbottom what about Neville to say
that Snape could save his toad does not not mean Snape
would do it.

______________________________________________________________________ 
Web-hosting solutions for home and business! http://website.yahoo.ca



From tanie_05 at hotmail.com  Tue Feb  5 18:12:06 2002
From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 18:12:06 -0000
Subject: Snapers or Sirists (was Defending Snape, Dissing Sirius)
In-Reply-To: <a3ne87+10tpa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3p79m+hm1p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34705

Marianne wrote:
> Don't you all think it interesting that most Snape fans can't seem 
to 
> cut Sirius any slack, and most Sirius fans only want to give Snape 
> enough rope with which to hang him? If someone bashes one "S-man", 
> the defense of that character almost always includes an attack on 
the 
> other "S-man."

Hmmm...interesting enough point. I admit I like Sirius *a lot* more 
than Snape, but I'll try to find some good things about Snape to say.

> I will once again rant about "The Prank."  People seem to assume 
that 
> Sirius wanted to kill Snape.  The only evidence we have in canon to 
> support that was Snape's statement to Dumbledore in PoA 
about "Sirius 
> Black showed himself capable of murder at the age of sixteen." I do 
> believe that Snape thinks Sirius wanted to kill him.  But, that is 
> not proof of Sirius' intent.

Oh, geez, Louise! We will never hear the end of this, will we? Here's 
the thing: both parties were wrong in this scenario. Sirius was wrong 
for sending Snape down there in the first place, and Snape was wrong 
because he threatened to reveal their secret and was being too nosy. 
We need a little bit more info what happened and an apology from both 
Sirius & Snape. :)
 
> I am not trying to excuse Sirius' actions. They could have led to 
> injury or death as well as dire consequences to Remus, had the 
> werewolf done any damage.    

Me either. It was rather foolish, but hey, he was like 16.

> They did not.  Did anyone die?  No.  Was 
> anyone serverely injured? No. Was Remus "outed" by this? No. Should 
> Sirius have received servere punishment?  Yes.  Did he?  We don't 
> know. Did Sirius apologize to Snape? To Lupin?  To James? We don't 
> know. 

Exactly. No one died, so no serious harm done. Like I said, there 
needs to be a few more apologies and we'll be ok.

> And, by the same token, if we hear Sirius apologize to Snape (and 
> mean it) will people put "The Prank" to rest?

lol. I can only hope...

-Kyrstyne
(who just thinks the whole prank thing was blown waaaaaay out of 
proportion)





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  5 18:30:00 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 18:30:00 -0000
Subject: Ron. Incredibly dense- typical teen boy Was (R&H's spat after the ball)
In-Reply-To: <a3nikp+q2t6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3p8b8+np6i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34706

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "david_p2002ca" <david_p at i...> wrote about 
R&H's fight after the ball paralleling it  to a lover's spat in a 
Russian book "The Hidden War" by Artyom Borovik.  

> "What a fool you are!"
> "And why is that?" Kirillov asked, dumbfounded.
> "Because no matter how many times you invite me to dance, I won't 
> dance with you," she said, turning away from him.
> "Where did you get the idea I would even ask you?" Kirillov 
> asked... "I wasn't even thinking of asking you to dance," he 
blurted clumsily.  "Understand?"
> "And that's exactly why," she said, turning back to him, "you are a 
> fool."

I don't know the ages of the two characters in the Hidden War, but 
the point readers have to remember about the Potterverse is that the 
main characters are TEENS! In GofF, the trio is 15 and the sad state 
of that is girls mature faster than boys and sometimes boys at that 
age are dense as bricks!

How many chapters did Ron and Harry not speak to each other? As I 
remember 15, I got in stupider arguments than that.

Yes Hermione is maturing faster, possibly gigling with Ginny off 
screen about dressing up and showing off for the Yule ball. I won't 
guess on the chances of H and Krum, but the core of the R&H argument 
was from H feeling overlooked while Ron fauned over Fleur (who 
honestly was 3 years older. Not a snowball's chance, but Ron can 
dream, can't he?"

H blew up when Ron remarked insensitively, "Hey, You're a girl."
"Thank you for noticing!"
Hopefully Ron will catch up a little to Hermione in the summer. If 
they build something on top of their friendship, it will be really 
special. I think JKR has the skill to treat it carefully as it should 
be.

Uncmark





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Feb  5 18:58:56 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 18:58:56 -0000
Subject: Snape's many good points (and Sirius' many bad points)
In-Reply-To: <a3p4ri+g1kb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3pa1g+dqrq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34707

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:
> Continuing the Snaper/Sirist debate:

> Ok, now on to Sirius' many bad points.
> 
> A lot of people here have given various excuses for "The Prank."  
> However, I don't see the prank on Snape as the worst thing Sirius
has 
> done.  Instead, I think it's his actions in PoA.  

Hmm.  Having earned my Snape-defending credentials, I think it's time
to do my bit for Sirius. <G>

I think it's rather unfair to blame Sirius for the public's panicked
reaction to his escape.  The only way he could've avoided that was to
stay put in Azkaban, and that wasn't a viable option.  Sure, it's easy
for us to say "why didn't he just owl Dumbledore?", but Sirius was
Britain's Most Wanted, both in the wizarding and the muggle worlds,
and he had just finished twelve years of being psychologically
tortured 24/7.  He was in no condition, and no position, to be either
trusting or optimistic, and he would've needed to have both of those
qualities in spades to believe that all his problems could be resolved
simply by writing a letter to an authority figure saying "no, really,
I didn't do it."

As for the Dementors at Hogwarts, I lay the blame for that squarely on
Fudge.  It was his idea, Dumbledore opposed it, they did more harm
than good (in fact, they did no good at all), and I'm not going to
hold Sirius responsible for failing to modify his plan of action (in
so far as he had a plan) to compensate for Fudge's stupidity.


> And now, before we Snapers and Sirists come to cyber-blows, let me 
> point out that I can see why a reader might like either, both, or 
> neither character.  I think Snape is written somewhat
inconsistently, 
> as are all three of James' friends. 

Now this I can totally get behind.  Since both characters are complex
and ambiguous (and, as you say, somewhat inconsistently written), I
wouldn't expect any group to reach a consensus about them.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From andrew_macian at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  5 19:14:43 2002
From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:14:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's many good points (and Sirius' many bad points)
In-Reply-To: <20020205183714.2215.qmail@web11402.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20020205191443.34528.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34708

Gretings from Andrew!

George Smiley, please call the Circus....

--- Caleb Williamson <the_little_catboy at yahoo.ca>
wrote:
>   I think calling Snape brave just because he turned
> spy is not a good reason. We don't know why he did
> was
> it the goodness of his heart(stopping to laugh) or
> was
> he just caught and he turned spy to save his skin.

I take it that you've not considered what it takes to
be a 'field executive', and I would thus point you
toward John Le Carre's excellent works for a suitable
introduction to the subject.

Clancy's adolescent posturings bear no resemblance to
reality in this, so I'll beg off discussing his
wish-fulfillment fantasies.

In summary and default of your deciding not to spend
the time on non-HP literature, let me simply say that
being an agent in place requires tremendous amounts of
stamina, the ability to handle more stress than any
other 'profession' with which I am acquainted
(neurosurgery ain't innit), the parallel ability to
*perfectly* dissemble...and a host of other skills
that needed not just for day-to-day survival, but
(especially in the case of dealing with the KGB and/or
Stasi) second-to-second.  If ever you're suspected,
the axe falls rapidly.

As for being 'turned', this increases the probability
of being caught out by several orders of magnitude. 
Added to the already mentioned levels of stress, and
you have a situation that will ensure that the agent
be caught; it's all a matter of time.

To say that anyone who faces the above situation(s)
and is not brave indicates (to me) that the person
saying so is not sharing my version of reality. YMMV.

> And
> by the way he didn't do such a great job. He couldnt
> help save the Potters and/or the  Longbottoms.

Different agents have different areas of
responsibility.  Different agents have different means
of reporting, *very* few of which are real-time, or
close to it.  As I recall, there was no mention in
canon of Snape having this brief.  Please elucidate
what I've missed.

> Speaking of a Longbottom what about Neville to say
> that Snape could save his toad does not not mean
> Snape
> would do it.

This goes to Snape's bravery (or lack thereof), and
competence as a 'spy', how?

Cheers,

Drieux

=====
ICQ # 76184391

'Each game of chess means there's one less
      Variation left to be played;
 Each day got through means one or two less
      Mistakes remain to be made.'
      --'Chess' by Sir Tim Rice

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com



From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com  Tue Feb  5 19:22:49 2002
From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:22:49 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape
Message-ID: <a.198fb4fd.29918b09@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34709

(Laura)

    First of all, I don't really "get" the mindset of those with a sexual 
attraction to Snape.  Of course, I have never read Snape-oriented fanfiction, 
which I assume portrays him in a more sex-god light than canon. 

I've never read any Snape-sex oriented fanfiction myself. In fact, I hate the 
way most fanfiction writers protray him. But, as one of those who does find 
Snape sexually attractive I may be able to shed some light on "why?" 

I see it as a 'punch or kiss' thing. If ever faced with the surly Severus 
Snape, I would be torn between doing these two things. I have him envisioned 
as a very demanding lover, sexually. This may sound strange, but I think if I 
was ever approached sexually by Severus Snape I'd be frightened, and this 
somehow makes him *more* attractive to him. I've never imagined him being 
"all-cuddles".  

Also, I'm just a villian lover through and through ^^ 

Now, as for my attracting to Quirrell...lol, that's a whole other story...^^ 

> (Major Snips-Laura still) 
> 
>     My attitude towards him, however, changed dramatically in GoF.  WHAT 
> ABOUT WHAT HE SAID TO HERMIONE?!...when her teeth were enlarged...he said 
> something to the effect of, "I see no difference."
> 
> MY GOD.
> 
>     No one else finds this particularly evil, as far as I can tell.  
> Everyone cites his former DE days, his penchant for picking on Neville 
> (which in and of itself is inexcusable) -- but those words he said in GoF 
> -- that was just unforgivable in my mind. ^_~  I don't know, maybe I just 
> have a soft spot for Hermione, but I will never forgive Snape for that.  
> There was no reason for it, excepting pure cruelty, pettiness, and the 
> like.


Actually, you're not alone in this. I don't have the message numbers on hand, 
but the subject was "The Worst of Snape/The Worst of Severus Snape". One of 
the "Worst ofs" mentioned was that little line to Hermione. 

  *shakes head* He's not a nice man.  He's not evil, but he's not a good 
person.  
> 
> 
>     I don't really hate Snape, it just upsets me when people try *so* hard 
> to excuse him into being a good person, when, in reality, who says he even 
> *wants* to be a nice person, underneath?  Also, this entire post has been 
> quite rant-y.  I apologize.
>    
> 

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! I'm a Snape lover, but you've argued more than 
my case for me! I've always found him mysterious myself, but never in the 
'lost soul' way that many seem to find him. There's just something about his 
antisocial nature I suppose. 

Say, could we get an acronym for those of us who *don't* want to turn Snape 
into a nice guy but *don't* hate him? ^^ 

~Cassie~ 


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




From jmmears at prodigy.net  Tue Feb  5 19:32:26 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 19:32:26 -0000
Subject: Snapers or Sirists (was Defending Snape, Dissing Sirius)
In-Reply-To: <a3osdo+sh4t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3pc0a+u0jb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34710

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" <blpurdom at y...> wrote:
  
> 
>
> 
> To go back to Snape's view, he probably thought he was quite right 
> to get Remus the sack; a werewolf IS a dangerous creature to have 
> around, especially if he's not taking his Wolfsbane Potion.  There 
> were extenuating circumstances the night they were all in the 
> Shrieking Shack, obviously, but as someone who was once almost 
> killed by a werewolf, I think Snape can be forgiven for his 
> particular perspective on this.  


You make some good points, but what I find unforgivable is the WAY 
Snape chooses to get rid of Lupin.  To tell a bunch of kids that 
another teacher is a werewolf in order to get him fired, is so 
despicable, sneaky and cowardly a way of dealing with the situation, 
that any respect I may have developed for him at that point, 
collapses back into loathing.  A mature, professional individual 
would never use students and parents fears to settle a personal, 
petty grudge.

Barb wrote: 
.  And Snape 
> protects a boy he seems to dislike spectacularly.  Many people 
will 
> do this for people they like only, but he doesn't restrict himself 
> in this way, showing his integrity and strength of character.

Am I wrong to think that it's his job as a teacher to protect all 
the students at the school, in whatever way he can?  Again, I can't 
give him extra credit because he doesn't let the children he hates 
die.


Jo Serenadust, who had to change her name because of all the other 
Jos suddenly appearing






From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Feb  5 19:33:26 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 19:33:26 -0000
Subject: Snape's many good points (and Sirius' many bad points)
In-Reply-To: <20020205183714.2215.qmail@web11402.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a3pc26+jo93@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34711

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Caleb Williamson <the_little_catboy at y...>
wrote:
>   I think calling Snape brave just because he turned
> spy is not a good reason. We don't know why he did was
> it the goodness of his heart(stopping to laugh) or was
> he just caught and he turned spy to save his skin. 

The goodness (or badness) of Snape's heart is a totally different
issue from his courage.  Whatever his motives, going back into the DE
fold to play double agent was incredibly dangerous; if he got caught,
Voldemort's punishment would've made likely made Azkaban seem like the
Tahiti Hilton.  As a way to "save his skin" it strikes me as a classic
case of jumping out a frying pan into a very hot fire.


> And
> by the way he didn't do such a great job. He couldnt
> help save the Potters and/or the  Longbottoms.

We don't have enough information to say whether or not Snape did a
good job as a Spy.  We don't know where he was or what he was working
on when the Potters were attacked, or how many people he did succeed
in saving.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From jmmears at prodigy.net  Tue Feb  5 19:41:39 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 19:41:39 -0000
Subject: Eureka! Snape and the Marauder's Map
In-Reply-To: <a3ougs+vtlk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3pchj+10ng@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34712

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> Pippin wrote (about Snape questioning Lupin about the Map):
> 
> > I am kicking myself, because I should have realized this as soon 
> > as I finished GoF. The name Snape recognizes from the Map is 
> > *Wormtail*. He doesn't know it from Hogwarts, he knows it from 
> > being a Death Eater, and (this is the kicker) he 
thinks "Wormtail" 
> > is Voldemort's code name for the traitor  *Sirius Black*.  
>
> 

>Hang on here.  I believe that the book indicates that Lupin saw 
both Sirius Blacks and Peter's names on the map and that was what 
brought him running to the Shrieking Shack (although why he left the 
map behind for Snape to find, I can't imagine).  Shouldn't Snape 
have seen both Pettigrews AND Blacks names on the map? 

Jo Serenadust

> 
>




From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com  Tue Feb  5 19:54:49 2002
From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:54:49 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's many good points (and Sirius' many bad points)
Message-ID: <145.8ffc1b6.29919289@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34713

I think Snape's bravery comes when his pride is at stake, even though some 
incidents conserning his "pride" are a bit petty. 

1. The Shrieking Shack. Snape runs in after Lupin. He doesn't know Black or 
the trio is there, but suspects Lupin of helping Black. It looks like Snape 
hasn't changed much since his school days with Lupin and is quick to hurry in 
and find a reason to get Lupin fired. Then he discovers Black and the trio. 
He might've even thought he was acting for the good HHR in some sense, but it 
seems he was acting more for his own interests. This would be his chance to 
prove Dumbledore wrong, who didn't trust his judgement on Lupin. Then he's 
called pathetic and later loses the 'glory of having captured the murderer 
Sirius Black. He's in a potentionally dangerous situation but probably 
doesn't care because it'll be a chance for him to tell everyone "I told you 
so." 

2. The boggart. A big strike against Snape's pride. I can see no one taking 
him seriously for a long time, until he brings out the big guns(wands?) and 
hits so hard that anyone would regret making fun of him. Of course, he 
could've been a big man and just ignored it all. Ok, so bullying a bunch of 
kids isn't brave, but as I said most situations are petty. He probably felt 
he needed to protect himself instead of just lying down and taking it. 

3. Calling Lupin about the 'Map'. Something Snape might've thought was brave, 
since he suspected Lupin of being in league with Black. As I've said before, 
I think Snape remembers the map and knows who filch took it from in their 
school days, and might be trying to confront Lupin with this. Snape might be 
thinking he's presenting evidence on Lupin to Lupin that could lead to 
Lupin's downfall. He probably thinks he's risking a lot by letting Lupin know 
he's on to him. (even though he's about 10 miles down the road) 

In short, I think it all boils down to when his pride is in question. Not 
exactly 'dragon slaying' bravery, but what Snape might consider bravery. 

~Cassie~ 



From finwitch at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  5 19:56:42 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 19:56:42 -0000
Subject: New Teachers for Order of the Phoenix
In-Reply-To: <a3npr1+6rkj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3pddq+jep2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34714

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
> So gossip has Fleur Delacour wanting to teach at Hogwarts. What 
> classes are open?
> 
> Defense against the Dark Arts? She doesn't quite seem up to it 
> (although she'd be better than Lockheart or Queril) I could see her 
> as a teaching assistant or maybe teaching a seminar on foreign 
magic 
> cultures. Could you see her working with Hagrid on lectures on 
> Magical Creatures?

Hmm... Not really.

> Would Hagrid be teaching fulltime? He may very well be a liaison to 
> the giants which might approach fulltime work.

Which would mean someone else taking over that potition...
 
> The new DADA teacher? Moody may very well retire or go to fulltime 
> Auror duty. The mysterious Arabella Figg? possible. 

Possible. And Moody... What about selling books as cover, of course 
never quitting being Auror. At *least* he'd easily find The Invisible 
Book Of Invisibility with his magic eye. Harry may want to know more 
about how to use his cloak, plus it might be a required book for 
DADA...
 
> Is she the same Mrs. Figg that lived down the street from the 
> Dursleys? Intriguing.

She is.
 
> What about Snape? I'd like to see what he would do with a Dark Arts 
> background.

He's off somewhere...
 
> That would leave a Potions teaching post free for Fleur.

Yes. And she might do that (with only girls learning anything!)

Mrs. Figg is for DADA, I think. (So if Sirius isn't free by the end 
of Book #5, Harry gets to go to Diagon Alley trough her fire-place).
Then, Fleur - potions, charms or languages (a French Lady to teach 
French, huh?)
And... Care of Magical Creatures with um - Charlie Weasley?
Silly idea - have the Weasley twins teach potions! They know of them 
(Polyjuice for Canary Creams? Another for Ton-tongue Toffee? They 
know need potions to make their *pranks*, anyway...)

Could Ron get to teach first-years? (He might need a salary...)
Could you see *Dobby* teaching anything?




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  5 20:10:47 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 20:10:47 -0000
Subject: Eureka! Snape and the Marauder's Map
In-Reply-To: <a3pchj+10ng@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3pe87+7emh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34715

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "serenadust" <jmmears at p...> wrote:
> 
> >Hang on here.  I believe that the book indicates that Lupin saw 
> both Sirius Blacks and Peter's names on the map and that was what 
> brought him running to the Shrieking Shack (although why he left 
the 
> map behind for Snape to find, I can't imagine).

Possibly. Snape using the name 'Wormtail' would make a few things 
klick in his mind, further confirmed by Sirius! He doubted already 
(WHY was he so interested in the rat?)

>  Shouldn't Snape 
> have seen both Pettigrews AND Blacks names on the map? 

Not necessarily. Not if P was 'going rat', as he was most of the 
time. The Trio did NOT see Rita Skeeter the beatle, remember?

BTW, did F&G figure out the rat's real identity, but no one listened 
to 'pranksters'? They *could* have - it was living too long to be a 
rat, sneakoscope going off... and well, maybe they made a map of 
their own before giving the original to Harry?(Two - one for Burrow, 
another for Hogswarts).





From moongirlk at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  5 20:26:17 2002
From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 20:26:17 -0000
Subject: Harry didn't forgive Peter (WAS: Could the twins turn bad?)
In-Reply-To: <a3ktuu+mi0a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3pf59+oluj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34716

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" <bonnie at n...> 
> --Dicentra, who is glad we can say that Sirius is guilty of nothing

Just had to comment.  I love Sirius, totally agree with JKR that he's 
dead sexy, hope to see tons more of him in the next books and am very 
glad to count him among the good guys, but I wouldn't go so far as to 
say he's guilty of nothing.  Strictly speaking he's guilty of any 
number of things, including but not limited to breaking and entering, 
assault and kidnapping.  
He of course had good motives for these things, but that doesn't stop 
him being guilty of them.

kimberly
Lovin' the bad boys, especially when they're bad for good reasons!




From ritadarling at ivillage.com  Tue Feb  5 19:37:03 2002
From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (Rita F)
Date: 5 Feb 2002 11:37:03 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Did Snape Do In GoF?
Message-ID: <20020205193703.22983.cpmta@c006.snv.cp.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34717

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020205/01280ea7/attachment.ksh>

From jmmears at prodigy.net  Tue Feb  5 21:05:27 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 21:05:27 -0000
Subject: Eureka! Snape and the Marauder's Map
In-Reply-To: <a3pe87+7emh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3phen+hd2r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34718

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "serenadust" <jmmears at p...> wrote:
> > 
> > >Hang on here.  I believe that the book indicates that Lupin saw 
> > both Sirius Blacks and Peter's names on the map and that was 
what 
> > brought him running to the Shrieking Shack (although why he left 
> the 
> > map behind for Snape to find, I can't imagine).
> 


Finwitch wrote:
> Possibly. Snape using the name 'Wormtail' would make a few things 
> klick in his mind, further confirmed by Sirius! He doubted already 
> (WHY was he so interested in the rat?)
>

Then I wrote: 
> >  Shouldn't Snape 
> > have seen both Pettigrews AND Blacks names on the map? 


Finwitch wrote:

> Not necessarily. Not if P was 'going rat', as he was most of the 
> time. The Trio did NOT see Rita Skeeter the beatle, remember?
> 
 I just went to check the relevant scene in POA and as soon as Lupin 
bursts into the room and disarms Harry and Hermione,...
"Then Lupin spoke, in a very tense voice.
""Where is he, Sirius?""
"Harry looked quickly at Lupin.  He didn't understand what Lupin 
meant.  Who was Lupin talking about?"

Then Black points at Ron.  It's obvious that Lupin had seen 
Pettigrew's name on the map while he was in rat form.  However in 
checking further, I realized that the shreiking shack is not on the 
Marauders Map.  Lupin sees Peter with Ron, Harry and Hermione 
outside the Whomping Willow and sees Black (in dog form) rushing 
toward them.  When Snape looks at the map, he sees Lupin running 
along the passageway and out of sight.  No one ever "sees" anything 
in the shack while looking at the map, because it's not on Hogwarts 
grounds.  Canon does seem to indicate that everyone's "real" names 
appear on the map (ex. Barty Crouch in GoF).
As for Rita, no one saw her on the map in beetle form because on the 
3 occasions the book mentions her being on the grounds in that form, 
no one happens to be looking at the map.

Jo Serenadust




From mark.saunders6 at virgin.net  Tue Feb  5 20:30:59 2002
From: mark.saunders6 at virgin.net (MARK SAUNDERS)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 20:30:59 -0000
Subject: Quick intro
Message-ID: <004201c1ae88$71bbc180$670b0150@n7j4l0>

No: HPFGUIDX 34719

I'm 39, from the UK, and discovered Harry Potter after seeing the
documentary on JKR shown on BBC1 on 27th December. I needed a book to read
to occupy a 9 hour rail journey the following day, and TPS was it. I've
since read the other three, finishing GoF yesterday evening!

I think the books get better each one JKR writes. She has an easy writing
style, an eye for detail, and a good instinct for the structure of a story.
Her confidence in her ability to write and story-tell has obviously grown
through the years, as can be evidenced by the increasing page-count with
each book. I think the way she has obviously given a lot of thought to the
planning of the books as if they're one long story is a major strength. This
forces you not to ignore things that appear on first reading to be throwaway
scene-setting characters or events, in case they prove to have some bearing
on the story later on. The obvious one is Scabbers being just a fairly
useless rat until the end of PoA, when he's revealed to be something else
entirely, a character that then goes on to be quite important to events in
GoF, and probably beyond. This makes the books exciting, because almost
anything can happen. In the next book, for example, the reason why
Dumbledore has insisted Harry go back to the Dursleys instead of just
staying with the Weasleys may prove to have some greater significance.

I thought GoF, in particular, was a masterpiece. JKR maintains a quite long
and involved story, with various sub-plots, across a fairly large
page-count, and resolves all the necessary issues, while leaving us with a
cliffhanger setting the scene for the politics of the Harry Potter world in
the next book.

That said, I do have two bones to pick with JKR's writing style. Firstly,
her insistence on using a capital letter for the word "muggle". By my
understanding, you only use a capital if a word is a name of some kind.
"Muggle", surely, is just JKR's word for "non-magical human", so it should
be all lowercase. She, correctly, uses the words "witch" and "wizard"
without the capital letter, because these are words meaning "magical human",
so why does she insist on using a capital M in "muggle"? I've noticed she
does this with a few other words of her own creation, too. Is it perhaps
something, as a friend suggested to me, to do with retaining copyright on
the word(s)?

The other problem I have is with her use of punctuation, mainly within
dialogue. JKR doesn't always seem to know when to end a sentence. For
example, on page 81 of GoF (assuming you're reading the same paperback
edition as me!), when Arthur Weasley introduces Ludo Bagman to the gang,
this is how JKR punctuates it: " 'Everyone,' Mr Weasley continued, 'this is
Ludo Bagman, you know who he is, it's thanks to him we've got such good
tickets-' " Any English student knows that that actually should be
punctuated like this: " 'Everyone,' Mr Weasley continued, 'this is Ludo
Bagman. You know who he is. It's thanks to him we've got such good tickets-'
" (You could also use a colon after "is" as an alternative to a full
stop/period). This is because Arthur Weasley is making three different
statements, related certainly, but individual, and therefore deserving of a
sentence each. This one thing in particular spoils my concentration when
reading a lot of JKR's dialogue, because I find I'm automatically trying to
correct her use of commas!

That aside, though, the books are all excellent. They contain believable
characters, good, convoluted plots, and are both impossible to second-guess
plot wise, and make compulsive reading.

I can't wait for the next one - whenever it appears! :)

Mark S (UK).





From mark.saunders6 at virgin.net  Tue Feb  5 20:55:19 2002
From: mark.saunders6 at virgin.net (MARK SAUNDERS)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 20:55:19 -0000
Subject: Cosmetic surgery/surgery
Message-ID: <004301c1ae88$75123f80$670b0150@n7j4l0>

No: HPFGUIDX 34720

   Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 20:14:08 -0000
   From: "sing2wine" <bonnie.abrams at cwine.com>
Subject: Cosmetic Surgery in the HP World

In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
Magically altering robes does not, for some strange reason,
work
in the Harry Potter world, in the same way that cosmetic surgery
doesn't seem to exist anywhere. I don't think JKR thought out
that one.

I questioned this (the cosmetic surgery part..) in my first post
about Moody's nose and leg. I pointed out the bones growing back in
Harry's arm in CoS. But a simpler example of cosmetic surgery in the
HP world is Hermione's teeth in GoF. After she was restored to having
human instead of rodent teeth - she had the nurse shorten them
slightly to make her more attractive - wouldn't that constitute
cosmetic surgery?

Bonnie  /  sing2wine

Bonnie,

There could be a very simple answer to the Moody question. What if he
prefers not have his "problems" corrected? What if, for example, he enjoys
the unnerving effect his magical eye has on people? Maybe he leaves his leg
the way it is to remind him how he got it? (Moody/Crouch seems to manage OK
with a wooden leg).

Harry's arm was repaired without question because, a. he's a minor, and
therefore other people are responsible for his welfare, b. it was a mistake
that led to what happened to him, and c. his injury wasn't "cosmetic".

Don't forget that with Hermione's teeth, she admitted exaggerating how much
the teeth had grown to get Madam Pomfrey to make them smaller than they had
been (for Hermione's own preference). The insinuation was that Madam Pomfrey
would NOT have been willing to do this had she not been deceived.

I wonder if people really remain injured as such exist within the magical
fraternity? Could it not be that, generally-speaking, magical practitioners
use their magic to repair many of the physical injuries that happen to them,
just because they have the ability to do so? (Cancer, apparently, is one
they have trouble with). It's clearly not the same with mental problems:
Lockhart's amnesia was obviously going to take some time to heal, and there
was no mention by anyone of being able to cure the madness of those within
Azkaban (even by LV himself, who presumably will attempt to free his
followers, and would have found such an ability useful when trying to
repatriate those made insane by life in the prison).

Mark S.





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  5 21:24:56 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 21:24:56 -0000
Subject: Magically altering clothes
In-Reply-To: <a3krh7+84k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3pij8+q4cq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34721

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" <midwife34 at a...> wrote:
> When I read the part about Ron taking the lace off of his robe and 
> messing up the spell by leaving ragged edges, I immediatly wondered 
> why he did not grab a roll of spellotape and have Hermione or Harry 
> help him turn the edge under and tape it to the inside of the robe. 

It didn't cross his mind, that's why. He's never learned of repairing 
clothes muggle-way, because at Mommy or Daddy would do a repair-spell.
(As well as Bill, Charlie, Percy, Fred&George). With his wand he just 
HAD to come up with something himself...

> It worked for me in college when I had no time to repair a loose 
hem 
> in a pair of pants or a sleeve, except , of course, i used masking 
> tape instead of spellotape.....lolol.

Ron would think of waving a wand with a repair-spell (which he hasn't 
learned to do yet)

> Another solution I thought of, 
> was for Ron to go to the kitchen and see what the House Elves could 
> do with the robe. Since they can do laundry, he could have taken 
the 
> robe off and laid it on a table for them to fix, or Ron could have 
> left the robe on and let the Elves mend it so they could judge what 
> length it needed to be hemmed at....oh well, just a thought. 

And listen to Hermione's remarks about 'slave-work' or admitting not 
being able to fix it himself? He does not want either. Besides I got 
the idea that Ron complains - not because he *really* dislikes his 
things, but because if *he* points out all the bad sides first, he 
doesn't have to hear *someone else* telling him so. (Like F&G in 
order to get Ron angry).




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  5 21:43:15 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 21:43:15 -0000
Subject: O.W.L.s and N.E.W.T.s/ Lupin's lesson plan
In-Reply-To: <a0.219dbb2f.298ec5b0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a3pjlj+nfs3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34722

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:
> In a message dated 02/02/02 22:06:42 GMT Standard Time, 
> > Also what are the twelve possible O.W.L.s one can achieve?  (I'm 
assuming 
> > twelve is maximum based on 
> > quotes relating to Percy and Barty Crouch, etal.)  Are passing 
these tests 
> > necessary to graduation and if 
> > so, does passing at least one O.W.L. count?
> > 
> > JRW (who is terribly obsessive-compulsive about tests and likes 
to know 
> > exactly where she stands on 
> > them!)
 
Subjects studied in 1st Year: Potions, DADA, Charms, Transfiguration, 
Herbology, Care of Magical Creatures, History of Magic, Astronomy, 
Flying(Quidditch). That's 9 subjects. Added with the 3 they've 
chosen, perhaps? (Adding Quidditch - so that Hermione gets only 11 
OWLs - while Harry, the natural Seeker might get full 12! Or Hermione 
might get 12th OWL for Muggle Studies; it's not like she *needs* to 
study that!)





From vencloviene at hotmail.com  Tue Feb  5 22:08:45 2002
From: vencloviene at hotmail.com (anavenc)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 22:08:45 -0000
Subject: Snape's mystery
Message-ID: <a3pl5d+7geq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34723


Cindy wrote:

Seriously, though, the level of affection for Snape among fans is 
still a mystery to me. I can understand thinking Snape plays an 
important role in the books, and I can understand thinking that he is 
interesting and mysterious. But that's as far as I can go. 
(end quote)

It's a mystery to me too, Cindy.  My theory is:
Snape, like many other HP characters, is a mythology archetype.  It 
seems to me that the characters, based on archetypes, powerfully  
affect our subconscious. (That's why I think the HP series wouldn't 
have worked with a female character in Harry's place; Harry's 
archetype is male--orphan boy on a quest). Returning to Snape, his 
archetype is dark, brooding, tortured character, which is 
irresistible to women, in spite of his evil traits.  The mythology 
parallel is a vampire *evil grin*. 

Ana. 





From hollydaze at btinternet.com  Tue Feb  5 21:53:20 2002
From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 21:53:20 -0000
Subject: Eureka! Snape and the Marauder's Map
References: <a3ougs+vtlk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <019201c1ae92$2e4952a0$e67601d5@j0dhe>

No: HPFGUIDX 34724

Pippin wrote (about Snape questioning Lupin about the Map):
<SNIP>
> > When Snape summons Lupin to his office, Lupin has no idea 
> > that Snape knows anything about Wormtail, and of course *he*  
> > thinks Wormtail is the one person who *couldn't* have given 
> > Harry the Map. 

Cindyu wrote:
> Let's stop here.  I'm a little confused.  I'm with you when you say 
> Snape thinks Wormtail is Sirius Black based on Snape's days as a DE.  
> I guess Snape kept hearing that this Wormtail fellow would be a 
> traitor and would betray the Potters, but Snape is under the mistaken 
> assumption that Black is Wormtail.
> 
> I lost you, however, on why Snape would summon Lupin to question 
> Lupin.  Snape detests Lupin and thinks Lupin is untrustworthy, so why 
> bother?

Now I may be wrong but I interpreted this as, Snape assuming that LUPIN gave Harry the map and that he is accusing Lupin of being a manufacturer of it. This is because Snape assumes that Sirius is Wormtail and was therefore one of the makers, Lupin was one of Sirius friends and would either know about the map or have helped make it.


Pippin again:
> > Thus the stage is set for a comedy of errors. 
> > When Lupin says, "Wormtail or one of those people?" it's the 
> > perfect wrong remark. Snape is bound to believe that Lupin is 
> > baiting him (again!) but he can't question Lupin more directly 
> > without revealing the source of his knowledge. 

Cindy wrote:
> Why would Snape think Harry got the map from the "manufacturers" if 
> he thinks Wormtail is Black, who is one of the manufacturers?  Snape 
> thinks Black wants to kill Harry, so if Black catches up with Harry, 
> why wouldn't Black just kill Harry on the spot rather than give him a 
> map?  

See above, he thinks he got it from Lupin.

Pippin again:
> > Suppose Snape is the spy who revealed to 
> > Dumbledore that someone close to the Potters was giving 
> > information to Voldemort. Snape told Dumbledore he suspected 
> > this person, known only as Wormtail, was in reality Sirius Black.  
> > Snape has believed all these years that James chose to 
> > disregard this warning and trust Sirius anyway. His berating 
> > Harry for arrogance in the office gives some basis for this. Then 
> > he's told that James actually did switch Secret Keepers, and 
> > picked Pettigrew who really was the traitor. So it's  all Snape's 
> > fault. 

Cindy wrote:
> I think you're on to something here.  Let's say Snape goes to 
> Dumbledore with the information that Wormtail AKA Black is the 
> traitor.  Dumbledore tells James that Black might be a spy and that 
> Dumbledore should be the SK, but James won't listen.  I 
> don't think Snape would have used the name Wormtail in his 
> conversation with Dumbledore, because Dumbledore would have mentioned 
> that to James.
> 
> Dumbledore believes Black is the SK, but James switches to 
> Wormtail AKA Peter.  Snape knows that he did his level best to 
> prevent James from using Black, it didn't work, and Black betrayed 
> James.  I don't really see why Snape would feel guilty about this.

Now this is the bit I have trouble with. I would have presumed that Snape does now about the codename "Wormtail" but when he was a death eater didn't know who it actually was and that it was only after the death of the Potters that he put 2 and 2 together and came up with 10 (WAAAAY out, but then everyone else did it too -even Dumbledore) and presumed that Sirius was the traitor and therefore Wormtail must have been Sirius. I don't think he actually knew who the spy was by their REAL name when he was spying, other wise He would have told D'dore outright that Sirius was the spy and nothing would have ever happened (Ii.e. James and Lily would still be here and LV probably would be too having never been gotten rid of by 1Yr. old Harry!)

I think Snape new that Dumbledore had offered himself as secret keeper (may be Snape did too) because they new it was someone close to the Potters but not who EXACTLY. Therefore D'dore didn't want to trust Sirius, Lupin OR Peter and offered himself instead. But James put his trust in Sirius (from everyone else's point of view) and Peter (in reality). So the comment form Snape about not thinking he (James) could be wrong in Sirius would make sense he too, if James has been told not to trust ANY of his close friends.

HOLLYDAZE!!!


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




From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Tue Feb  5 22:26:24 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 22:26:24 -0000
Subject: Harry didn't forgive Peter (WAS: Could the twins turn bad?)
In-Reply-To: <a3pf59+oluj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3pm6g+k91m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34725

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "moongirlk" <moongirlk at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" <bonnie at n...> 
> > --Dicentra, who is glad we can say that Sirius is guilty of nothing
> 
> Just had to comment.  I love Sirius, totally agree with JKR that he's 
> dead sexy, hope to see tons more of him in the next books and am very 
> glad to count him among the good guys, but I wouldn't go so far as to 
> say he's guilty of nothing.  Strictly speaking he's guilty of any 
> number of things, including but not limited to breaking and entering, 
> assault and kidnapping.  
> He of course had good motives for these things, but that doesn't stop 
> him being guilty of them.
> 
> kimberly
> Lovin' the bad boys, especially when they're bad for good reasons!

Let me amend that:

--Dicentra, who is glad we can say that Sirius is not guilty murder

I think someone walked in on me and I had to write something in fast.
 Came out wrong.

As for the ongoing Sirius/Snape debate, maybe we should call it a draw
and wait for OoP, which, according to the latest rumor, will be out in
April or May.  I'm sure it will provide more than enough ammo for both
sides.

--Dicentra, who wants to have Sirius's children but wouldn't mind
having dinner and a deep conversation with Severus 






From devin.smither at yale.edu  Tue Feb  5 21:18:55 2002
From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 21:18:55 -0000
Subject: Snape's many good points (and Sirius' many bad points)
In-Reply-To: <a3p4ri+g1kb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3pi7v+mcrg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34726

> A lot of people here have given various excuses for "The Prank."  
> However, I don't see the prank on Snape as the worst thing Sirius 
has 
> done.  Instead, I think it's his actions in PoA.  Sirius has 
this "I'm 
> going to get revenge on Peter single-handedly, no matter what it 
> costs" attitude that causes other people a lot of suffering.  
People 
> have said how Snape scares the students -- what about Sirius?  The 
> students think a murderer is in the school, and Ron thinks Sirius 
> tried to stab him.  Because of Sirius, there's Dementors at the 
school 
> all year, who scare all the kids, make Harry faint, depress Hagrid, 
> and try to give Harry "The Kiss."  Think of all the punishment 
Neville 
> gets when Sirius steals his passwords -- he suffers for a lot 
longer 
> than from any punishment Snape ever gave him.  The whole wizarding 
> world is terrified, with kids in London not being allowed out 
alone.  
> No work is getting done at the ministry. Even the muggles are 
scared. 
> And, Sirius could have avoided all this, just by sending Dumbledore 
an 
> owl saying "Check out Ron Weasley's rat!" 
> 
> If it's OK for Sirius to injure and terrify people, why is it so 
awful 
> for Snape to be snippy and threaten students with detention?  
Anyway, 
> Sirius did more than cause fear.  He slashed the Fat Lady for no 
> reason, and she is discribed as being quite traumatized by it.  And 
he 
> broke Ron's leg, and apparently never apologized.

All right, I didn't want to get in on this Snape/Sirius business, but 
the above has forced me.

I respect Snape.  He has done things that, I'm sure, were beyond the 
capability of almost any wizard.  He managed to dupe Voldy.  That 
alone is worth a lot in my book, in terms of his respectability.  
Whatever duty he is about to embark upon (or already has embarked 
upon) is obviously frightening to him, and yet he will do it anyway.  
Whether, as some speculate, he was driven back to Dumbledore by the 
ill treatment of Voldemort and a realization he would not get 
promotion in the ranks of the Death Eaters or whether he went back 
for utterly altruistic reasons, he has been (what must have been 
exactly the upcoming adverb, knowing things about Voldemort) 
unflinchingly brave and fantastically cool-headed.  I'm looking 
forward to hearing about his exploits in the next three books.

That doesn't mean I like the guy though.

Heck, I would HATE him if I were a student, and I could never be 
friends with a man so vicious and cruel and unthinking (much of the 
time).  Please, Snape fans, don't be mad at me.  He's been all of 
these at some point, no matter what he may have been through or seen, 
he's been pretty...well...*mean* to kids before, to people he has 
power over.  Kudos to him for saving Harry from Quirrell's (is it 
spelled like that, one r?, one l?) curse in the first book, and for 
having enough guts to go and try to take down Lupin AND Black (yes, 
I'm certain he didn't know the Invisibility Cloak was there when he 
first left).  Yay, Snape!  But his comments (like the one mentioned 
about Hermione's teeth, thanks to whoever understood my emotional 
rant earlier and mentioned that particular Snape insult, Laura, was 
it?) and actions (no matter whether he had the antidote or not, even 
pretending he would poison Trevor is rather atrocious) don't make me 
want to sit down and have dinner with him.

Sirius and "the Prank".  For the love of all that is good in this 
world, doesn't ANYONE remember what it was like to be that age?  
Teenagers do stupid things that could've gotten people killed all the 
time!  "Dare you to run into the street right now.  See if you can 
make it across before the light turns green."  Or some such 
nonsense.  Then when it turns out okay, they laugh and go on (which I 
think is akin to the Marauders laughing at the "near misses" in their 
Hogwarts, not out of spite or cruelty, but as a kind of relief and 
also as a sort of "boy, aren't we invincible from trouble" kind of 
thing).  And people don't just do it to their friends, but their 
enemies as well.  Does anyone else remember Elkins's story about 
those kids who almost lit her hair on fire?  (Speaking of which, my 
condolences, Elkins.  If those had been my enemies, I'd think about 
hitting them with a nice, solid baseball bat.  Wouldn't actually do 
it, but it would give me incredible pleasure to imagine it.)  That 
doesn't mean I think Snape should forgive Black.  Nope, never, not 
for that.  That was inexcusable and childish.  But it happens all the 
time to the young.  Maybe it's easier for me to remember (I'll be 21 
in four months and I go to college where a lot of stupid, reckless 
things still happen), but all the same, it was just something a kid 
did that was stupid and foolish.  There are people, I'm sure, that 
you know personally that got involved, in one manner or other, in a 
situation fraught with danger.  They wouldn't do it now, but they did 
it then.  I'm sure Sirius would never do such a thing again, but I 
don't think his never apologizing is a sign of complete wickedness.  
It's pretty awkward and difficult to apologize for something you did 
decades ago.  Maybe that didn't even cross Black's mind in the 
Shrieking Shack (which would be completely forgiveable considering 
all the things happening at the time).  So I think Black, while he 
should never be forgiven by Snape, should be given some slack by 
readers.  You probably did REALLY dumb things when you were little, 
too.

All right, the next, and I'm supposing last, thing I want to talk 
about refers more directly to the quotes above.  Sirius does not do 
what the sane, reasonable person would do and write to Dumbledore, 
saying "Dumbledore, I wasn't the Secret-Keeper.  It was Pettigrew, 
who's alive and well and disguised as a rat with the one of the 
Weasleys.  I saw him in a picture with them in The Daily Prophet.  
Watch the hell out, and tell me when I can come out of hiding when 
you prove Pettigrew is alive.  Thanks, Sirius".  Key words in the 
above sentence: sane, reasonable.  Black just came out of Azkaban, 
which sucks both of these things (I would imagine) right out of you.  
The same could be said for Black's apparent need to catch Pettigrew 
himself (he probably doesn't even consider the possibility of getting 
help--maybe time in Azkaban drives the nasty need-for-revenge bits of 
a human being up).  Same for his (admittedly savage) attack on the 
Fat Lady.  The reason we have two Siriuses is because one is post-
traumatic stress syndrome of the worst kind Sirius who only 
(apparently) starts to get REALLY better about a year after he 
escapes.  The other is kindly, but still a Marauder, and a risk-
taker, Sirius.  He probably STILL has nightmares about Azkaban.  I 
think we can afford to give him a reprieve on his actions in the year 
of PoA.  He had been driven quite near insanity, I imagine, and is 
recovering rather well.

So, I hope this at least gets to a few people who thought Black was 
thoughtless (which he was: in both his adult years, because he'd been 
in a place with Dementors for twelve years with insanity calling his 
name, and in his teenage years, simply because he was a teenager) for 
absolutely no reason.  Forgive me for the length of this.  Good day.

Devin





From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Tue Feb  5 23:13:13 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 23:13:13 -0000
Subject: More On Snape's Backstory
In-Reply-To: <a3p2g9+avcb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3pou9+vqa8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34727

Cindysphynx wrote:
> One of the biggest remaining mysteries about Snape is why he decided 
> to work for Voldemort, and equally important, why he decided to come 
> back to Dumbledore....
> OK, here's a theory (using as much canon as I can), and it all turns 
> on The Prank.
> ...the Marauders are making Snape's life miserable.  They 
> bewitch parchment to insult Snape. ....
> Then Sirius plays The Prank, almost getting Snape killed....
> Snape tells this to Dumbledore, demanding an apology and hoping for 
> expulsion.  Dumbledore, however, wants to protect Lupin...
> This is just too much for Snape to take.  Dumbledore has shown who 
> he favors and where his loyalties lie -- the Gryffindors and the 
> Marauders.  This solidifies Snape's relationships with the DE 
> Slytherins...< 

Cindy, despite your inexplicable lack of affection for Severus, I like 
this part of your theory.  I, like you, have wondered if maybe the 
Marauder's Map was specifically bewitched to insult *Snape* and no one 
else. 

I also definitely agree that the Prank could have been the catalyst 
that made Snape turn to the Death eaters.  However, I see it in even 
stronger terms than you.  Remember, there was a war on between 
Gryffindor and Slytherin at the time.  As far as Snape could tell, 4 
Gryffindors had tried to murder him, and the headmaster, a Gryffindor, 
 had sided with them.  Forget about wanting power or prestige -- Snape 
may have felt he that he needed Voldemort's help just to stay alive. 

Cindy continued:
> Once Snape becomes a DE, he finds it is not all it was cracked up to 
> be.... Snape is just a journeyman DE, outside the outer outskirts 
> of Voldemort's inner circle, hardly in a position of power.... 
> Voldemort, believing that Snape isn't trying hard enough 
> and needs some motivation, punishes Snape with several protracted 
> Cruciatus Curses and a substantial tongue-lashing....<

This is pure speculation.  We have no idea what position Snape had 
among Voldemort's circle (although he was certainly younger than some 
of the other followers.)  I actually think Snape has the sort of 
personality that Voldemort would like, and Snape also has skills that 
are apparently not very common.  

Cindy continues on:
> And that is the moment when Snape decides to defect back to 
> Dumbledore's camp.  .... Snape lures his old friends (Travers, 
> Mulciber, Dolohoff, Rosier, Crouch Jr., the Lestranges) to a trap in 
> which a certain talented Auror (Moody) kills some and takes the rest 
> into custody.<

Now, this part is directly contradicted by cannon.  Of Snape's 5 
closest friends (all of whom were Death Eaters), three got through the 
fall of Voldemort without being apprehended.  These include Avery 
(still free) and the Lestranges, who were only apprehended 
substantially later, after they attacked the Longbottoms. (Ditto for 
Crouch Jr., although we don't know if he was Snape's friend.)  We 
know Snape worked for Dumbledore before the fall of Voldemort; 
Dumbledore says so.  If Snape had turned in all his friends before the 
fall of Voldemort, how come three out of five went free?

By the way, there is nothing to indicate that Snape even knew 
Mulciber, Dolohoff, or Travers; the Death Eaters didn't know all of 
each others' identities.

Further reasons to think that Snape didn't turn in any Death Eaters -- 
when Sirius was in Azkaban, he heard Death Eaters ranting about those 
who betrayed them, and Snape wasn't one of them.  And, Karkaroff 
seemed surprised that Snape was a spy.  So, at the very least, none of 
the Death Eaters thought Snape had turned them in. 

Cindy had one last point:

> ...Snape despises Sirius because The Prank was the catalyst for 
> Snape's decision to become a DE and all of the pain Snape suffered 
> as a result.

Quite possible.  I think, though, that the main reason Snape hates 
Sirius is that he blames Sirius for Lily's death. 




From cindysphynx at home.com  Tue Feb  5 23:57:25 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 23:57:25 -0000
Subject: More On Snape's Backstory
In-Reply-To: <a3pou9+vqa8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3prh5+u0nm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34728

A few canon points on the Snape Backstory:

*********

> Cindy wrote:

> > Once Snape becomes a DE, he finds it is not all it was cracked up 
to 
> > be.... Snape is just a journeyman DE, outside the outer outskirts 
> > of Voldemort's inner circle, hardly in a position of power.... 
> > Voldemort, believing that Snape isn't trying hard enough 
> > and needs some motivation, punishes Snape with several protracted 
> > Cruciatus Curses and a substantial tongue-lashing....<
> 

Judy responded:

> This is pure speculation.  We have no idea what position Snape had 
> among Voldemort's circle (although he was certainly younger than 
some 
> of the other followers.)  I actually think Snape has the sort of 
> personality that Voldemort would like, and Snape also has skills 
that 
> are apparently not very common.  

Yes, true, it is surely speculation, but not wild, wholly 
unsupportable speculation.  :-)  I'm in the camp that believes Snape 
was a low-level DE because Snape apparently lacked some key 
information about the DEs, specifically, Snape apparently didn't know 
Wormtail was the spy and Black was not.  

If Snape really was in the inner circle and treated well and having a 
grand old time, then why did he leave?  Yes, Snape might have certain 
skills (potions, for example), but I don't see why Voldemort and the 
DEs would value potion-making skills.  Have we ever seen a situation 
in which a DE relies on a difficult-to-brew potion?  The only DE to 
use a potion (apart from Voldemort's rather straightforward re-
birthing potion) was Crouch/Moody, and he brewed it himself.  Heck, 
even second-year students can make polyjuice potion.  Maybe Snape 
felt his skills were being wasted in the ranks of the DEs, but that 
is rather weak motivation for Snape to return to Dumbledore.  

> Cindy continues on:
> > And that is the moment when Snape decides to defect back to 
> > Dumbledore's camp.  .... Snape lures his old friends (Travers, 
> > Mulciber, Dolohoff, Rosier, Crouch Jr., the Lestranges) to a trap 
in 
> > which a certain talented Auror (Moody) kills some and takes the 
rest 
> > into custody.<
> 

Judy wrote:

> Now, this part is directly contradicted by cannon.  Of Snape's 5 
> closest friends (all of whom were Death Eaters), three got through 
the 
> fall of Voldemort without being apprehended.  These include Avery 
> (still free) and the Lestranges, who were only apprehended 
> substantially later, after they attacked the Longbottoms. (Ditto 
for 
> Crouch Jr., although we don't know if he was Snape's friend.)  We 
> know Snape worked for Dumbledore before the fall of Voldemort; 
> Dumbledore says so.  If Snape had turned in all his friends before 
the 
> fall of Voldemort, how come three out of five went free?
> 
> By the way, there is nothing to indicate that Snape even knew 
> Mulciber, Dolohoff, or Travers; the Death Eaters didn't know all of 
> each others' identities.
> 

I think canon is consistent with the idea that Snape ambushed Avery 
and the Lestranges before Voldemort fell and before the Longbottoms 
were tortured.  In "Padfoot Returns," Sirius says:  "Crouch's own son 
was caught with a group of Death Eaters who'd managed to talk their 
way out of Azkaban."  This means that the Lestranges were in Azkaban 
(due to the ambush?) and talked their way out, only to attack Frank 
Longbottom with Crouch Jr. and get sent right back to Azkaban.  So 
that part fits the ambush theory well enough.

The part about Crouch Jr. being caught in the ambush doesn't work at 
all.  Oops!  I think he only went to Azkaban once.  Forget that part.

As for Avery, we know he "wormed his way out of trouble by saying 
he'd been acting under the Imperius Curse -- he's still at large."  
If Avery talked his way out of trouble, that must mean he was 
apprehended, although he may not have ever been sent to Azkaban.  
That, too, fits the ambush idea. 

Things definitely do get fuzzy when we talk about Dolohov, Rosier, 
Wilkes and Mulciber.  We know that Rosier and Wilkes were Snape's old 
Slytherin buddies, making them prime candidates for an ambush.  We 
also know that Karkaroff was captured by Moody before Rosier and 
Wilkes, which is news to Karkaroff in the Pensieve scene.  But we do 
know that Karkaroff fingered them in the Pensieve scene, and there's 
reason to think Karkaroff has some relationship with Snape at that 
point -- Karkaroff fingers Snape.  So maybe Rosier, Wilkes, and 
Dolohov (and Mulciber?) were taken in the ambush, maybe not.  That 
just means it is unclear at this point which of Snape's old Slytherin 
friends were taken out in the ambush, not that there wasn't one.

Judy again:

> Further reasons to think that Snape didn't turn in any Death 
Eaters -- 
> when Sirius was in Azkaban, he heard Death Eaters ranting about 
those 
> who betrayed them, and Snape wasn't one of them.  

The Azkaban DEs would only rant about Snape being a spy if they knew 
he had set up the ambush.  How would they know that?  They think 
Moody caught them, and Snape got away.  The DEs in Azkaban wouldn't 
necessarily know anything about Dumbledore's statement about Snape 
during Karkaroff's plea bargain.  When Karkaroff was returned to 
Azkaban before his release, Karkaroff certainly wouldn't have told 
his DE buddies that he had gone to a plea bargain and cut a deal, so 
he wouldn't have mentioned Snape's spying, either.  

Judy again:

>And, Karkaroff 
> seemed surprised that Snape was a spy.  

If Karkaroff (who was in Azkaban before the plea bargain) didn't know 
Snape was a spy, that suggests that none of the DEs in Azkaban knew 
Snape was a spy.  Which I think is consistent with the ambush idea.

Cindy




From tanie_05 at hotmail.com  Wed Feb  6 00:44:00 2002
From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 00:44:00 -0000
Subject: Secret - Keeper
In-Reply-To: <3C5F2788.B73E4548@kingwoodcable.com>
Message-ID: <a3pu8g+6ocp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34729

Katze wrote:
> Yes, D did offer to be the SK instead of Sirius, but was he aware of
> James' decision to change to Peter on Sirius' recommendation? Did D 
know
> that Peter was the actual SK? I would think he didn't know because 
he
> would've been able to get Sirius off had he known. Perhaps I didn't
> clarify my question enough the first time around.

Ok, maybe I didn't fully understand it the first time around. But, 
no, I'm positive Dumbledore didn't know they switched because 
otherwise he could have defended Sirius against the MoM (well, 
against Crouch anyhoo).

> I think this reference must be referring to the time before they 
changed
> to Peter. Or perhaps I'm confused...

Don't be. No one knew except James, Lily, Sirius, & Peter that the 
Secret Keeper was switched. That's why everyone (well, everyone Fudge 
told; god, I don't trust that man.) though Sirius betrayed the 
Potters. After all, who would tell the truth. James & Lily are dead, 
Peter (that little rat) is also "dead", & Sirius can't be trusted by 
anyone.

-Kyrstyne
(who is willing to defend Sirius to the death)





From midwife34 at aol.com  Wed Feb  6 01:28:42 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 01:28:42 -0000
Subject: Wizard Medicine
In-Reply-To: <a3nd6i+6tvg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3q0sa+3pdc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34730

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" <jbryson at r...> wrote:
> Wizard medicine doesn't seem to have kept up with Wizard cooking 
> and transportation.  Mrs. Crouch died of cancer and Mrs Riddle died 
> in childbirth.  You'd think a midwitch would have done an accio when
> trouble started. (Yes, yes, not that simple, I know.) Seems a 
medical 
> version accio would also have taken care of Mrs. Crouch's cancers,
>  too.
> 
> Tex

Oh the many childbirth complications i could go into here that could 
not be fixed by accio, let me make a list: PIH seizures, secondary 
apnea of the infant after birth, placental abruption, uterine 
rupture, cord prolapse, breech delivery and the secondary sequela 
involved even if you did the accio charm...need i go on?sorry, can't 
do cancer, not my field.

Jo Ellen




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Wed Feb  6 01:34:06 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 01:34:06 -0000
Subject: Did Snape betray his friends?
In-Reply-To: <a3prh5+u0nm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3q16e+baqo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34731

Cindysphynx wrote:

> I think canon is consistent with the idea that Snape ambushed Avery 
> and the Lestranges before Voldemort fell and before the Longbottoms 
> were tortured.  In "Padfoot Returns," Sirius says:  "Crouch's own 
> son 
> was caught with a group of Death Eaters who'd managed to talk their 
> way out of Azkaban."  This means that the Lestranges were in Azkaban 
> (due to the ambush?) and talked their way out, only to attack Frank 
> Longbottom with Crouch Jr. and get sent right back to Azkaban.  So 
> that part fits the ambush theory well enough.<

So, you're claiming that 1 ) Snape told Dumbledore "The Lestranges, 
Rosier, Wilkes, and Avery are Death Eaters", and 2) these five (and 
maybe some others) got caught in an ambush by Moody, and yet three out 
of the five were acquited of being Death Eaters anyway?  Sorry, can't 
buy it.  Even the Ministry of Magic isn't *that* gullible. 

Cindy also said:
> I'm in the camp that believes Snape 
> was a low-level DE because Snape apparently lacked some key 
> information about the DEs, specifically, Snape apparently didn't 
> know Wormtail was the spy and Black was not... <

This has been discussed here before.  It's possible that some Death 
Eaters *saw* Peter tell Voldy "I'm the Secret keeper", and that Snape 
just wasn't there at the time.  Also, we don't even know for sure that 
any of the Death Eaters in Azkaban know that Wormtail is Peter; maybe 
only Voldy himself knew. The Death Eaters could be denouncing 
"Wormtail" in their sleep, or even just denouncing "the spy" 
without knowing exactly who the spy was. Peter would still have reason 
to avoid the Death Eaters, because if they knew he was still alive, 
they could guess that the whole confrontation between Sirius and Peter 
was a set-up and that Peter was the one who betrayed the Potters. 

And, Cindy continued:
> If Snape really was in the inner circle and treated well and having 
> a grand old time, then why did he leave?  Yes, Snape might have 
> certain 
> skills (potions, for example), but I don't see why Voldemort and the 
> DEs would value potion-making skills....<

Well, the Death Eaters might need a source of the veritaserum, which 
is carefully controlled by the MoM.  And, Snape doesn't just have 
potion making skills, he's also good at the Dark Arts, which the Death 
Eaters *definitely* do value.  If Snape wasn't all that high up, it 
was probably because he was so young.  He was only a couple of years 
out of Hogwarts when Voldy fell. 

My theory of why Snape left the Death Eaters is that he was in love 
with Lily.  The Death Eaters did a lot of awful things, and Snape 
could handle that, but when they were going after the one person he 
cared about (and planning to kill her only child, if not Lily 
herself), he couldn't stand it.  So, he went to the only person who 
could help -- Dumbledore.  Dumbledore saw that Snape actually cared 
about someone, and was even willing to risk his life for this person, 
so he gave Snape a second chance.

Sure, this is pure speculation.  But, it has a big advantage over the 
theory that Snape betrayed his friends.  Dumbledore didn't just strike 
a deal with Snape that kept Snape out of Azkaban, he *trusts* Snape.  
Why would Dumbledore trust a guy who sells out all his friends? 

-- Judy




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Wed Feb  6 01:37:38 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 01:37:38 -0000
Subject: Snape vs. Sirius, round 2
In-Reply-To: <a3pa1g+dqrq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3q1d2+epcg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34732

Marina wrote:

>... I think it's rather unfair to blame Sirius for the public's
> panicked reaction to his escape.  The only way he could've avoided
> that was to stay put in Azkaban, and that wasn't a viable option. 
> Sure, it's easy for us to say "why didn't he just owl Dumbledore?", 
> but Sirius was ...in no condition, and no position, to be either
> trusting or optimistic, and he would've needed to have both of those
> qualities in spades to believe that all his problems could be 
> resolved simply by writing a letter to an authority figure saying 
> "no, really, I didn't do it."...<

I definitely don't think Sirius should have stayed in Azkaban.  But, 
there was no reason for him not to tell Dumbledore what was going on. 
We know he had access to owls (he used one to buy Harry's broom) and 
he had a whole year to think of this soultion.  He didn't need to 
think this would solve all his probems; he just had to realize that it 
couldn't hurt and give it a try.

(Of course, the real reason Sirius didn't do this is that it would 
ruin the plot.  But we are talking here as if Sirius was a real 
person.)

Devin also defended Sirius, saying that Sirius' violence in his adult 
years was
> "because he'd been in a place with Dementors for twelve years with
> insanity calling his name, and in his teenage years, simply because
> he was a teenager)"<

OK, we can try to excuse Sirius' behavior as a teenager, and we can 
try to excuse his behavior as an adult.  Unfortunately, that's just 
about all of his behavior that we know of.  *Maybe* he'd be a great 
guy if he wasn't a teenager and wasn't traumatized, but, maybe not.  I 
really don't see his being in Azkaban as an excuse for attacking the 
Fat Lady or for not apologizing for breaking Ron's leg, or for his 
glib claim that Snape deserved being fed to a werewolf.   Azkaban 
makes people depressed; it doesn't force people to be violent or lack 
remorse. (It probably makes people quite remorseful, in fact.). 

I think one of the reasons I like Snape better than Sirius is that 
Snape mostly just *says* nasty things, he doesn't get violent like 
Sirius.  My family is full of people who say lots of nasty things, and 
don't even realize they're hurting people's feelings.  In fact, I was 
like that myself for a long time, without even realizing I was doing 
it. 

-- Judy






From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  6 02:08:54 2002
From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 18:08:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Gregory Goyle
Message-ID: <20020206020854.29422.qmail@web21110.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34733

Just a simple question: Was it ever mentioned
somewhere that Goyle's first name is Gregory? I know
it's mentioned that Crabbe is Vincent, but Goyle? I
never found it it the books. I even seached the etexts
(yes, I do have them for easy referencing) but found
no Gregory except for some statue named like that. Was
it ever mentioned in a chat or some interview? Could
someone point me to where it is mentioned?

-Ron Yu

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com



From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Feb  6 02:45:12 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 02:45:12 -0000
Subject: Did Snape betray his friends?
In-Reply-To: <a3q16e+baqo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3q5bo+u4mb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34734

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:
> Cindysphynx wrote:
> 
> My theory of why Snape left the Death Eaters is that he was in 
love 
> with Lily.  The Death Eaters did a lot of awful things, and Snape 
> could handle that, but when they were going after the one person 
he 
> cared about (and planning to kill her only child, if not Lily 
> herself), he couldn't stand it.  So, he went to the only person 
who 
> could help -- Dumbledore.  Dumbledore saw that Snape actually 
cared 
> about someone, and was even willing to risk his life for this 
person, 
> so he gave Snape a second chance.
> 
> Sure, this is pure speculation.  But, it has a big advantage over 
the 
> theory that Snape betrayed his friends.  Dumbledore didn't just 
strike 
> a deal with Snape that kept Snape out of Azkaban, he *trusts* 
Snape.  
> Why would Dumbledore trust a guy who sells out all his friends? 
> 

Well, I happen to believe that Snape *did* turn in his friends, and 
that it makes him *more* trustworthy to Dumbledore, not less.  See, 
I have no idea whether or not Snape loved Lily (though I rather hope 
not, as I think that would be really trite); but I definitely don't 
buy the idea that love of Lily turned him away from the DE's because 
such a shallow conversion, frankly, isn't worth crap.  If one is 
going to turn from the side of evil to the side of good, then one 
must do it out of genuine moral conviction, a sincere belief that 
evil is, well, *evil* and must be fought.  "I don't care how many 
innocents they kill, it's only if they hurt my girl that I object" 
just doesn't cut it.

And look at it from Dumbledore's point of view.  Snape falls for 
Lily, the DEs want to hurt Lily, so Snape defects?  Well, bully for 
him.  And what happens if, a little down the line, he falls for 
another girl and she's on the DEs side? I wouldn't trust a spy like 
that any further than I could throw him.  

No, I think that somewhere down the line Snape came to genuinely 
hate Voldy and everything the DEs stood for; and to hate them *on 
principle*, not just emotionally.  And Snape has generally been 
shown as willing, and even determined, to put principle and duty 
ahead of his emotions.  Several people have pointed out in the 
course of this discussion that Snape protects Harry and friends, 
even though he loathes them, because it's his duty to do so.  It's 
his duty as a teacher, and as a player on Dumbledore's team -- not 
to mention his life debt to James.  And if he can help people he 
hates, even at risk to his own life, because it's his duty, then I 
think he can also turn against people he likes because it's his 
duty.  And if Snape is clear on what his duty is, and is willing to 
stick to it regardless of his personal feelings, then Dumbledore can 
rightfully trust him.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From queekie99 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  6 01:22:50 2002
From: queekie99 at yahoo.com (queekie99)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 01:22:50 -0000
Subject: JKR's Writing
In-Reply-To: <004201c1ae88$71bbc180$670b0150@n7j4l0>
Message-ID: <a3q0ha+uhb5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34735


In response to Mark Saunders (UK) who said: "The other problem I 
have is with her use of punctuation, mainly within dialogue. JKR 
doesn't always seem to know when to end a sentence. For example, on 
page 81 of GoF (assuming you're reading the same paperback edition 
as me!), when Arthur Weasley introduces Ludo Bagman to the gang, 
this is how JKR punctuates it: " 'Everyone,' Mr Weasley 
continued, 'this is Ludo Bagman, you know who he is, it's thanks to 
him we've got such good tickets-' " Any English student knows that 
that actually should be punctuated like this: " 'Everyone,' Mr 
Weasley continued, 'this is Ludo Bagman. You know who he is. It's 
thanks to him we've got such good tickets-'", 

I say this: 

yes.. well, in response to Mark's comment about Rowling's 
punctuation, I do realize that it is grammatically 'incorrect', but 
I believe she writes in that manner to give us an idea of how the 
characters themselves speak- are they speaking quickly? Slowly? When 
I first read that excerpt in Goblet  of Fire, I imagined that Mr. 
Weasley was speaking rapidly in order to get his surrounding 
companions acquaintanced with Ludo- which fit my mental image of the 
atmosphere of excitement that was occuring in the book at that time. 
If Rowling had done the proper punctuations for Mr. Weasley's 
statement, then it would have seemed he was talking more slowly,  
etc...

-Alice Wack (Alicey)






From uncmark at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  6 02:51:55 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 02:51:55 -0000
Subject: Gregory Goyle
In-Reply-To: <20020206020854.29422.qmail@web21110.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a3q5ob+dpoo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34736

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ronald Rae Yu <ickle_ronniekins at y...> 
wrote:
> Just a simple question: Was it ever mentioned
> somewhere that Goyle's first name is Gregory? I know
> it's mentioned that Crabbe is Vincent, but Goyle? I
> never found it it the books. I even seached the etexts
> (yes, I do have them for easy referencing) but found
> no Gregory except for some statue named like that. Was
> it ever mentioned in a chat or some interview? Could
> someone point me to where it is mentioned?
> 
> -Ron Yu
> 

I'm not sure about the four HP books, but I picked up "Fantastic 
Beasts & Where to Find Them". Along with "Quidditch through the Ages" 
it's a collectable 'textbook' that has 'Property of Harry Potter' 
written on the cover and inside has 'Shared by Ron Weasley because 
his fell apart'. The book has doodles in the margins supposedly 
written by Ron, Harry, and a few by Hermione.

Anyway, above Troll is a troll doodle with a caption "My Name is 
Gregory Goyle and I smell."

Uncmark






From cindysphynx at home.com  Wed Feb  6 03:27:23 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 03:27:23 -0000
Subject: Did Snape betray his friends?
In-Reply-To: <a3q5bo+u4mb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3q7qr+vhtv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34737

Marina wrote:

> Well, I happen to believe that Snape *did* turn in his friends, and 
> that it makes him *more* trustworthy to Dumbledore, not less.  See, 

I tend to agree with this.  This all occurred in a time when you 
didn't know who to trust.  Dumbledore cannot be dumb enough to just 
take Snape's word for the fact that he now wishes to be on 
Dumbledore's team.  How could Dumbledore be sure that Snape wasn't 
just going to spy for Voldemort?

The answer, I suggest, is that there has to be a price to be welcomed 
back.  Maybe an ambush wasn't the price, but there had to be a price, 
and a big one.

Marina again:

> No, I think that somewhere down the line Snape came to genuinely 
> hate Voldy and everything the DEs stood for; and to hate them *on 
> principle*, not just emotionally.  

Maybe so, but *why*?  What changed between the time Snape became a DE 
and the time he reversed himself?  Surely Snape didn't have a 
powerful religious conversion and realize the error of his ways?  
There must have been a catalyst, and a powerful one.

Marina again:

>And if Snape is clear on what his duty is, and is willing to 
> stick to it regardless of his personal feelings, then Dumbledore 
can 
> rightfully trust him.
> 

Hmmm.  It is correct that Dumbledore trusts Snape, but I don't think 
it is the same sort of trust that Dumbledore has in Hagrid.  
Dumbledore trusts Hagrid with his life, and Hagrid has a blind 
loyalty to Dumbledore.  I think Snape is held in lower regard; 
Dumbledore simply is convinced that Snape is loyal to Dumbledore, not 
Voldemort.  After all, I can think of two circumstances in which 
Snape did something inconsistent with Dumbledore's orders.  First, he 
leaked Lupin's werewolf problem despite direct orders from Dumbledore 
to keep it a secret.  Second, he (I think) allowed a dementor into 
the castle.  I think those sorts of things have caused Dumbledore not 
to have quite the same high level of trust in Snape.  

In other words, Dumbledore believes (correctly) that Hagrid would lay 
down his life to save Dumbledore.  I doubt that Dumbledore expects 
Snape to lay down his life to save Dumbledore.  

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but that's what my gut tells me.

Cindy (who doesn't see why Snape would leave the DEs and turn spy at 
great personal risk just to save a woman who married his enemy)





From brewpub44 at earthlink.net  Wed Feb  6 03:33:49 2002
From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 03:33:49 -0000
Subject: What Did Snape Do In GoF?
In-Reply-To: <20020205193703.22983.cpmta@c006.snv.cp.net>
Message-ID: <a3q86t+jeoh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34738

Hi all, sorry to have been gone so long...

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Rita F <ritadarling at i...> wrote:
> rosewisegood wrote:
> 
> 
> I think that Dumbledore sent Snape off to Voldemort immediately, 
that's where he went.  And he groveled and explained why he couldn't 
get there when the mark burned.
> 

I don't think so at all. Too obvious. It must be known amongst the 
DEs that Snape was a spy. I think it is more likely that DD sent 
Snape off to recruit *other* spies. I think Snape knows who amongst 
the 'fringe' DEs (not those at the cemetary, whom I consider 
the 'inner circle', but the second string, as it were) would be 
willing to go turncoat and spy on LV and company. I think Snape is 
the perfect candidate to recruit and run other spies. He has the 
experience to tell them "Look, DD & co. saved me from a ruinous run 
with the DEs. Help us in our battle, and you'll be saved too." Very 
fitting and apt.

A Barkeep in Diagon Alley





From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Wed Feb  6 04:21:38 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 04:21:38 -0000
Subject: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 2
In-Reply-To: <a3q5bo+u4mb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3qb0i+lo7d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34739

Marina said:
> Well, I happen to believe that Snape *did* turn in his friends, and 
> that it makes him *more* trustworthy to Dumbledore, not less.... 
> If one is 
> going to turn from the side of evil to the side of good, then one 
> must do it out of genuine moral conviction, a sincere belief that 
> evil is, well, *evil* and must be fought. ...
> No, I think that somewhere down the line Snape came to genuinely 
> hate Voldy and everything the DEs stood for...<

If Snape turned against the Death Eaters once he realized just how 
much evil they were doing, out of a genuine desire to prevent them 
from doing further evil, then that might be a good reason to trust 
him.  However, Cindy's theory was more along the lines of Snape going 
to Dumbledore and saying "Hey, I don't like my position in Voldy's 
organization.  Will you give me a better deal if I turn in all my 
friends?"  This would definitely *not* be a reason to trust him.  

In regards to my theory that Snape went to Dumbledore's side to 
protect Lily, Cindy said:
> [I don't] see why Snape would leave the DEs and turn spy at 
> great personal risk just to save a woman who married his enemy<

Hey, he doesn't necessarily stop loving her just because she married 
someone else! 


Marina didn't like my theory, saying:
> "I don't care how many innocents they kill, it's only if they hurt
> my girl that I object" just doesn't cut it.
> And look at it from Dumbledore's point of view. Snape falls for 
> Lily, the DEs want to hurt Lily, so Snape defects? Well, bully for 
> him. And what happens if, a little down the line, he falls for 
> another girl and she's on the DEs side? I wouldn't trust a spy like 
> that any further than I could throw him. 
> No, I think that somewhere down the line Snape came to genuinely 
> hate Voldy and everything the DEs stood for....<

I think I haven't made my theory clear.  It's not that Snape thought  
"Hey, I'll join whatever side has the girl I like on it!"  It's that 
for the first time, Snape truly empathized with one of Voldy's 
potential victims.  Voldy always dehumanized his victims and presented 
them as just a bunch of worthless muggles, mud-bloods, and 
muggle-lovers, but this time the intended victim was someone Snape 
knew well and cared about.  This brought home the fact that the Death 
Eaters were in fact killing good, worthwhile people, not just faceless 
scum.  

This sort of thing really happens in wars.  A soldier is feeling just 
fine about following orders to kill people, until he's asked to kill 
someone who reminds him of his own mother, or brother, or child. 

So, with this theory, Snape *would* come to hate what the Death Eaters 
were doing.  (He probably wouldn't have to betray many of his friends, 
though, because Voldy's fall happened very soon after going over to 
Dumbledore's side.) 

-- Judy




From porphyria at mindspring.com  Wed Feb  6 07:40:08 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 23:40:08 -0800
Subject: What does it mean to 'like' a character, a character like Snape
In-Reply-To: <a3al4b+n3qo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BECCC6DD-1AD4-11D6-826F-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34740

Yeesh! Just when I thought our semi-regular Snape discussions would 
fizzle out. And sometimes I feel guilty since I'm so obsessed with him 
myself. ;-) Let's start by saying he's an acquired taste. Also, for the 
benefit of anyone newly signed onto the list, we had a series of similar 
'why love/hate him' posts for the first two weeks or so in January 
during which time many interesting things were said -- and that's just 
since I've been lurking.

Now, I really wanted to reply the previous posts discussing why we 
'like' a particular character (specifically Elkins' #34058, Mahoney's 
#34078, et.al.) and I didn't quite have time at the time, so I'll 
combine my comments to that thread with the current Snape one. I could 
go on and on defending Snape's various questionable actions forever, but 
I'd like to shift the emphasis a little back to the question of why we 
enjoy or identify with one character over another.

I think what one likes in a fictitious character is not always simply 
whom we would like in real life, or whom we feel we can justify 
according to some sort of virtue/vice ratio. They are fictitious! We 
don't have to worry about getting along with them in real life. Instead, 
I tend to judge characters by what they represent as characters: what 
kind of struggle or issue they seem to be saddled with, what kind 
'problem to be worked out' that the character symbolizes. This judgment 
is based partly on how well they are depicted -- obviously they have to 
be complex or they won't have any heft as characters, and partly on 
their function in the story -- a character strictly there for comic 
relief (IMO, Colin Creevey) won't have the same potential for meaning as 
a character with real problems.

In this case I find Snape a much more compelling character than Sirius. 
Unlike Sirius, Snape probably is guilty of terrible crimes (not simply 
dumb sophomoric pranks, or well-meaning errors of judgment), plus he's 
saddled with a vindictive and extremely irritable personality. So he's 
got a lot to work against. Luckily he seems to have in his favor a large 
amount of conviction, bravery and talent (and on this point I'll simply 
defer to all the previous posts defending him). Therefore what I expect 
him to do to make up for his past, or to put it in a more literary way, 
*to resolve the problem he represents*, ought to be that much more 
dramatic and powerful.

But even in the meantime it's the struggle he represents that I identify 
with. Not literally (I'm a very *nice* person, kind to children and 
animals), but with the symbol, with the idea of corralling your dark 
impulses into the service of good. Snape seems to have an enormous 
struggle with guilt, regret and traumatic emotional damage. I'm basing 
this on evidence from the staircase scene in GoF where he nearly has a 
nervous breakdown featuring full-blown hysterical symptoms when 
Crouch-as-Moody confronts him with his past, plus my assumption that 
being a DE, or worse yet, a DE spy, must be emotionally warping. Amanda 
pointed out in her post #34435 "Far from not developing, he was pushed 
too far, to where he doesn't give a thought to what most of us think are 
big, major, awful things to do." I agree, I think his petty, sniping, 
moments are a measure of how callous his past has made him, and the 
points where he really loses control are a measure of how traumatized he 
still is from those days. I think he tries to atone for his past by his 
obsessive (and unappreciated) protecting of Harry, and his obvious 
loyalty to Dumbledore, among other things. The fact that he often deals 
with things *badly* makes his effort that much more powerful a symbol 
for me -- he's messed up, and he's still trying.

So does that mean I 'like' him? Absolutely, because I identify with him 
as a larger-than-life version of a few of my own problems with guilt, 
anger, spite, the usual. I'm desperately rooting for him to find some 
sort of peace. But do I apply the same standards of judgment to him that 
I would to a real person? No, because he is fictitious and in order to 
be a powerful symbol he has to be drawn as more dramatic than life. 
Plus, this is a fantasy world that often has more brutal standards than 
ours. Plus no real teenagers were harmed in the writing of Snape -- I 
actually love some of his vindictive moments precisely because they are 
fiction, and why bother reading fiction if you can't vicariously enjoy 
stuff you can't do in real life? So yes, he's my favorite character 
precisely for all is problematic traits.

~~Porphyria

p.s. Catlady wrote "I love purple, I named the Prewetts Porphyry and 
Perpetua in my fic" and Barb wrote "How cool that you have for your 
handle the disease I gave Snape in my fic to explain his temper and his 
vampire-like qualities!" Thanks, you two! Just for the record, I got 
this handle from the wonderfully perverse Browning poem, but I do love 
all things purple and all things gothic, so it fits. :-)



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




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Wed Feb  6 07:47:27 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:47:27 +1100
Subject: The S*S wars, a smidgeon of Snape/Lily, grammar
Message-ID: <003501c1aee2$b91b4aa0$1d2bdccb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 34741

I've kept a low profile in the Sirius/Snape wars, as I've expounded my (fictional vs factual) feelings on this subject many times already.  For the record, I'll add my name to the list of those who like both.  I admit that Sirius would probably appeal more than Snape as a real person, Prank notwithstanding... a bit of fire and passion never went astray.  Impetuous, passionate people are often weak on thinking through consequences.  A true Gryffindor?  (vague attempt to find a RL parallel to The Prank... the teenage boy who energetically convinces his friend that's he's sober enough to drive, resulting in an almost-fatal accident? It does happen... it's the ol' immortality of youth syndrome)  A bit of Snape's tortured enigma wouldn't hurt either, though the nastiness would put me off.  Fictionally speaking, however, I'm with Laura:

Laura:
> One of the best signs of a capable writer is the ability to develop three-dimensional characters.  As in real life, *no one* should be perfectly good or perfectly evil in a well-written book.  Making characters multi-faceted makes them more believable and easier for the reader to relate to (...)  Furthermore, who wants to read about perfect people?  Perfect people don't have moral dilemmas, they don't have any faults, they barely have emotions, they don't ever do anything wrong, and, most importantly, THEY DON'T EXIST.   <

Hear hear... here's to P.A.C.M.A.N. (Perfectly Angelic Characters Make Awful Novels)...

Cassie:
> Say, could we get an acronym for those of us who *don't* want to turn Snape 
into a nice guy but *don't* hate him? ^^ 

In honour of the S-men debates, let's have another "man" acronym...


S.P.A.C.E.M.A.N. (Snape: Perversely Appealing Character, Endearingly Mysterious And Nasty)

Judy:
> My theory of why Snape left the Death Eaters is that he was in love with Lily.  (...) Sure, this is pure speculation.

Ahaaaa! (Captain Tabouli beams broadly).  Congratulations, Judy - your wisdom and sound deductive powers have just won you a free berth on the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS (Love Of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Severus)!  Welcome aboard, welcome aboard.  We have a friendly and colourful crew on deck, and are always open to new recruits.  However, as Captain, it is my duty to warn you that taking the "pure speculation" line may impede your chances of promotion.  My senior crew members and I hold that there is, in fact, quite a bit of canon evidence keeping us afloat. Refer to my 6th of November post "Severus Snape: The grudge and the very long LOLLIPOPS biography" (and, for that matter, my 12th of January post "Survivor Snape: LOLLIPOPS sails again!" which you may not have recognised as supporting this theory at the time...)

Marina:
> See, I have no idea whether or not Snape loved Lily (though I rather hope 
not, as I think that would be really trite); but I definitely don't 
buy the idea that love of Lily turned him away from the DE's because 
such a shallow conversion, frankly, isn't worth crap.  If one is 
going to turn from the side of evil to the side of good, then one 
must do it out of genuine moral conviction, a sincere belief that 
evil is, well, *evil* and must be fought.  "I don't care how many 
innocents they kill, it's only if they hurt my girl that I object" 
just doesn't cut it.<

No, no, it doesn't need to be anywhere near that simple.  Or that trite.  Besides, Voldemort wasn't after Lily personally, he was after James and Harry.  I lean more towards the idea that the plot to murder the Potters (rather than strangers and sundry Muggles) was what shocked Snape into realising what he had become.  Too close to home.  Imagining Lily's pain brought home the fact that he'd already helped to inflict that same pain on other people.  Not to mention what Lily would think of what he had turned himself into... (if she *had* survived, I can hardly see her feeling any warmth whatsoever towards the Death Eaters who killed her son and husband).  In my bio, I see Lily as a sort of principled moralist, who stands out against MWPP's torture of Snape, fuelling the unrequited crush, and, when it came to killing the Potters, reminding Snape that in fact, he was no better than his teen torturers himself.  Trigger for elaborate and dangerous flight from Voldemort to Dumbledore in excruciating angst...

I mean, look at Snape!  Are those symptoms of self-loathing or what?  Neglecting his appearance, taking out his bitterness and resentment at the world on his students, perfectionism, control freak tendencies, vengefulness, bearing lifelong grudges, distrusting everyone, general anti-social unpleasantness...

...hmmm.  Just had an interesting thought.  I wonder, actually, whether Snape and Harry's (and even Voldemort's!) childhoods might not have had quite a bit in common.  I've certainly heard that severe mistrust of people and bullying the weak and defenceless, notably torturing pets and the like, are classic symptoms of a child being abused by his/her carers.  And as I've said before, I think Snape turning up to Hogwarts at 11 knowing more curses than the 7th years is a very worrying indicator of what his childhood must have been like.  Whom did he want to curse?  An abusive parent or guardian?

Harry is remarkable example of a child who has emerged from his horrible childhood reasonably unscathed... perhaps Snape wasn't so lucky.  (OK, let me hastily add that I'm *explaining* Snape's cruelty, which is *NOT* the same as justifying it).

Alice:
> in response to Mark's comment about Rowling's 
punctuation, I do realize that it is grammatically 'incorrect', but 
I believe she writes in that manner to give us an idea of how the 
characters themselves speak- are they speaking quickly? Slowly?<

Acchhh, in HP JKR is being what I might call a "colloquial" writer.  She is endeavouring to write plausible, modern human dialogue, and since when has that been a glittering illustration of correct grammar?  Perfectly grammatical speech in the mouths of schoolchildren might mollify a few critics, but I think a large proportion of HP's audience would find it unconvincingly, clunky and off-putting.  HP's incredible popularity testifies to JKR's accessible style...

Tabouli.


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




From pollux46 at hotmail.com  Wed Feb  6 11:51:35 2002
From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 11:51:35 -0000
Subject: Eureka! Snape and the Marauder's Map
In-Reply-To: <a3pchj+10ng@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3r5c7+o1st@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34742

  Pippin wrote (about Snape questioning Lupin about the Map):
>  
>I am kicking myself, because I should have realized this as soon 
>as I finished GoF. The name Snape recognizes from the Map is 
>*Wormtail*. He doesn't know it from Hogwarts, he knows it from 
>being a Death Eater, and (this is the kicker) he 
>thinks "Wormtail" 
>is Voldemort's code name for the traitor  *Sirius Black*.


Jo Serenadust wrote:
> Hang on here.  I believe that the book indicates that Lupin saw 
> both Sirius Blacks and Peter's names on the map and that was what 
> brought him running to the Shrieking Shack (although why he left 
>the 
> map behind for Snape to find, I can't imagine).  Shouldn't Snape 
> have seen both Pettigrews AND Blacks names on the map? 
> 
> Jo Serenadust


          If you re-read Pippin's message (it's No 34626) you'll see 
that Pippin isn't actually referring to the Shreaking Shack scene. 
The incident in question is the one in "Snape's Grudge" after 
Malfoy's head-in-the-air scare. This way it makes sense, because of 
course when the Map's insulting Snape it uses it's makers' nicknames 
("Mr Moony would like to express his astonishment" and so on
) Thanks 
Pippin! That scene had always puzzled me. I never could quite work 
out how on earth Snape thought Lupin might know anything about the 
map.


Cindy wrote: 
>  Why would Snape think Harry got the map from the "manufacturers" 
>if 
>he thinks Wormtail is Black, who is one of the manufacturers? Snape 
>thinks Black wants to kill Harry, so if Black catches up with Harry, 
>why wouldn't Black just kill Harry on the spot rather than give him 
>a 
>map? 

>Cindy

      Snape could have thought that not Black, but Lupin, in league 
with Sirius/Wormtail, had given the Map to Harry to lure him out of 
the school and into Black's clutches. Of course he doesn't know what 
exactly the Map is but he has guessed that it is "instructions to get 
into Hogmeande without passing the Dementors?"






From devin.smither at yale.edu  Wed Feb  6 03:51:08 2002
From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 03:51:08 -0000
Subject: Snape vs. Sirius, round 2
In-Reply-To: <a3q1d2+epcg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3q97c+itd6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34743

I, Devin, did indeed write the quoted porion of the following: 

> Devin also defended Sirius, saying that Sirius' violence in his 
adult 
> years was
> > "because he'd been in a place with Dementors for twelve years with
> > insanity calling his name, and in his teenage years, simply 
because
> > he was a teenager)"<

And Judy wrote:
 
> OK, we can try to excuse Sirius' behavior as a teenager, and we can 
> try to excuse his behavior as an adult.  Unfortunately, that's just 
> about all of his behavior that we know of.  *Maybe* he'd be a great 
> guy if he wasn't a teenager and wasn't traumatized, but, maybe 
not.  I 
> really don't see his being in Azkaban as an excuse for attacking 
the 
> Fat Lady or for not apologizing for breaking Ron's leg, or for his 
> glib claim that Snape deserved being fed to a werewolf.   Azkaban 
> makes people depressed; it doesn't force people to be violent or 
lack 
> remorse. (It probably makes people quite remorseful, in fact.). 

*deep sigh at realization of probable length of this post*

Okay, just to get back on track, I don't hate Snape.  I don't really 
like him, but I don't hate him.  He's done some really mean things, 
but he's done some really brave things.  I definitely grew more 
respect for him after learning a bit about his past.  I'm willing to 
cut him a little more slack for his rather nasty behavior knowing 
even some of what he went through as a spy, how hard it must have 
been to not give himself away, etc.

So, can't the people who don't like Sirius at least not hate him as I 
don't hate Snape?  All right, let's go over the above points Judy 
attempted to make.  I agree with what someone said earlier that it 
would really take a lot of trust to send a letter to any authority, 
even with the sentence "Pettigrew is Ron Weasley's rat."  Yes, 
someone as prudent as Dumbledore would indeed check that out, but 
once again, fresh out of a place like Azkaban, even months out of 
such a place, one isn't thinking clearly (I imagine, I've never been 
in a place like Azkaban) and there might be some way to trace an owl 
that we aren't aware of.  I'm sure my paranoia would be on HIGH after 
getting out of a place like Azkaban.  Even months after, I'd be 
scared as hell to let ANYONE know where I was.  So, was Sirius 
justified in attacking the Fat Lady?  No, of course not.  But he 
wanted to find Pettigrew, couldn't trust anyone but Crookshanks at 
that point, and was understandably upset when he couldn't get in 
there and get Pettigrew out.  I'm certain that if Black had had some 
human contact (with Lupin or some such), he could have been persuaded 
to get through to Dumbledore, but perhaps his lack of contact with 
humanity for THIRTEEN YEARS by the end of PoA had something to do 
with his unswerving plan to kill Pettigrew himself.  You probably 
don't think too much about trusting other human beings after 12 years 
in Azkaban and a year of living in hiding.

I disagree that Azkaban wouldn't make someone vengeful or callous in 
conversation.  Let's go with the supposition that Azkaban takes all 
things good that you remember out of you.  Well, this would remove 
trust, understanding, graciousness, and tact.  In fact, given those 
twelve years in Azkaban and 1 year sneaking around, we ought to be 
astounded by Black's speedy recovery of such things as love (for 
Harry as his godson and the offer to move in) and trust (in Lupin and 
HRH that they aren't about to just turn him over to the Dementors).  
Remorse?  Remorse...I think of remorse as a rather positive emotion, 
in its being often the first step to forgive or apologize and as an 
emotion that is very human and essential.  I bet you anything remorse 
is one of the last things on anyone's mind in Azkaban.

Another thing, Judy's postulate is that he might be a great guy if he 
wasn't a teenager at the time, but we can't know.  *slight cough*  
Who said he wasn't a great guy?  Lots of people at that age do REALLY 
stupid things.  This (THE PRANK! WHY CAN'T WE GET OVER THE PRANK? 
AAAUGGH!!) is the one and only incidence of reckless stupidity and 
cruelty in Sirius's childhood (unless you count allowing a werewolf 
to roam school grounds and Hogsmeade...but then you gotta count James 
and Pettigrew and Lupin in on that, so they're all culpable) that is 
documented in canon.  Most of the rest of the time, he appears to 
have been a pretty decent human being, albeit risk-taking (but so was 
Snape...both Snape and Sirius usually take risks for the right 
reasons).  He was James Potter's best friend, laughed at his wedding 
to Lily.  He must've been quite something as a human being, actually, 
to have been a friend, THE friend, one might argue, to the Potters.  
So there, I hope that's at least a bit of a case for his one 
documented black mark as just that, a black mark on an otherwise 
fairly clean page.

Adulthood, PoA.  It's apparent he took a few risks, such as buying 
Harry the Firebolt and such, so he wasn't entirely laid waste in 
paranoia by Azkaban.  I'm not trying to use Azkaban as the 
justification for every last bit of Sirius's foul-ups.  He shouldn't 
have slashed the Fat Lady, but he was, you know, a tad miffed about 
not being able to lay hands on the man who murdered his best friend 
and might kill Harry anytime he found convenient.  No, he shouldn't 
have made that comment about Snape, but he wasn't exactly thinking 
utterly straight under the stress of the situation, was he?  Would 
you have been?  Yes, he should've apologized to Ron, but he was a 
trifle more worried about Pettigrew and convincing HRH and Lupin of 
the truth.  Besides that, bones can apparently be healed in a matter 
of an hour or less, maybe it's not that big a deal in the wizarding 
world.  And once again, he hasn't had human contact for SO many 
years.  Maybe "I'm sorry" isn't even in his functioning vocabulary 
anymore.  Maybe remorse and apologies are one of the FIRST things to 
go in Azkaban.

Adulthood, GoF.  Sirius shows himself to be almost entirely 
reasonable and thoughtful.  Except for his continued prejudicial and 
stupid distrust of Snape, he's really pretty great and a very good 
role model for Harry.

I don't want to convince people who don't like Sirius to like him.  I 
just want them to not hate him or dislike him so savagely as they 
do.  I almost hated Snape before, but I don't now.  Maybe at some 
point, by Book VI or VII, I'll even be able to forgive him completely 
and settle into actually liking him.  If I can do that for you 
Snapers, can't you do at least as little as I ask for my Sirius?

Devin, who's editing and finalizing an H/G ship he hopes to advertise 
on the OT-Chatter page at some point





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  6 04:29:23 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 04:29:23 -0000
Subject: Who will die?
In-Reply-To: <20020131154236.2683.qmail@web14004.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a3qbf3+3o1n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34744

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., 
> 
> --- "Balfour, Julie<j.balfour at l...> wrote:
> I have a vague recollection of JKR saying not only that someone who 
> is a big fan of Harry will die in Book 5, but also that it will 
> tear her apart to write this person's death. I have concluded from 
> this that it is likely to be Hagrid who will die - how much of a 
> fan of Harry is Hagrid?!  He utterly dotes upon him, has done since 
> he was a baby, (even though he wasn't around to see him grow up).  

I was looking through JKR interviews and although there will be 
deaths, she has statd that Hagrid will be around. If a Harry fan will 
die, I'd bet on the Creevey brothers. I wouldn't be surprised if 
Colin and Dennis were based on someone she knew growing up.

uncmark





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Feb  6 12:34:51 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 12:34:51 -0000
Subject: Did Snape betray his friends?
In-Reply-To: <a3q7qr+vhtv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3r7tb+e2s2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34745

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> Marina wrote:
> > No, I think that somewhere down the line Snape came to genuinely 
> > hate Voldy and everything the DEs stood for; and to hate them 
*on 
> > principle*, not just emotionally.  
> 
> Maybe so, but *why*?  What changed between the time Snape became a 
DE 
> and the time he reversed himself?  Surely Snape didn't have a 
> powerful religious conversion and realize the error of his ways?  
> There must have been a catalyst, and a powerful one.

True, and I really hope JKR tells us what it is relatively soon.  
But I also really hope that it won't turn out to be love of Lily, or 
any other girl.  I think Tru Luv is sorely overused as a literary 
device, and vastly overrated as a moral motivator.  Snape, as a 
charqacter, has been refreshingly free of cliche so far -- I don't 
think I've ever encountered any character quite like him -- and I 
don't want to see his motives reduced to something as trite as "he 
did it all for love."  

> 
> Marina again:
> 
> >And if Snape is clear on what his duty is, and is willing to 
> > stick to it regardless of his personal feelings, then Dumbledore 
> can 
> > rightfully trust him.
> > 
> 
> Hmmm.  It is correct that Dumbledore trusts Snape, but I don't 
think 
> it is the same sort of trust that Dumbledore has in Hagrid.  
> Dumbledore trusts Hagrid with his life, and Hagrid has a blind 
> loyalty to Dumbledore.  I think Snape is held in lower regard; 

I don't agree.  Whatever mission Snape goes on at the end of GoF, 
it's obviously highly dangerous, which means Snape very well might 
have to lay down his life -- if not for Dumbledore, then for 
Dumbledore's cause.  (And the cause is the vital thing here -- 
surely Dumbledore doesn't believe that his own life is the most 
important thing at stake in this war.)  If he didn't believe that 
Snape was willing to die on the job, then he wouldn't have given 
Snape the job in the first place.  There are too many other lives at 
stake.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Feb  6 12:53:58 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 12:53:58 -0000
Subject: Snape vs. Sirius, round 2
In-Reply-To: <a3q97c+itd6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3r916+6co1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34746

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uilnslcoap" <devin.smither at y...> wrote:
> Remorse?  Remorse...I think of remorse as a rather positive 
emotion, 
> in its being often the first step to forgive or apologize and as 
an 
> emotion that is very human and essential.  I bet you anything 
remorse 
> is one of the last things on anyone's mind in Azkaban.

I think remorse is a sufficiently unhappy emotion that the Dementors 
wouldn't suck it out.  And actually, Sirius is full of remorse -- 
for James and Lily's deaths.  His remorse, in fact, is totally out 
of proportion to his actual guilt in this case.  And it's easy to 
see why -- twelve years of being forced to relive those horrible 
memories over and over, having all those painful feelings 
amplified... he wouldn't even been able to say to himself "hey, it 
wasn't really my fault," because that would be a semi-nice thought, 
and the Dementors would gobble it right up. <shudder>  The prank, 
OTOH, was probably a fairly neutral memory for him, not unhappy 
enough for the Dementors to make him relive it; so it's safe to 
assume that in twelve years in Azkaban he never gave it a thought -- 
so when would he have had the chace to develop remorse for it?


Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Feb  6 13:39:37 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 13:39:37 -0000
Subject: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 2
In-Reply-To: <a3qb0i+lo7d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3rbmp+prn6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34747


> If Snape turned against the Death Eaters once he realized just how 
> much evil they were doing, out of a genuine desire to prevent them 
> from doing further evil, then that might be a good reason to trust 
> him.  However, Cindy's theory was more along the lines of Snape
going 
> to Dumbledore and saying "Hey, I don't like my position in Voldy's 
> organization.  Will you give me a better deal if I turn in all my 
> friends?"  This would definitely *not* be a reason to trust him.  

True.  My theory does not fit in either with your theory, or with
Cindy's.  It is my own, my very own, and I will love it and hug it and
call it George.

>
> Marina didn't like my theory, saying:
> > "I don't care how many innocents they kill, it's only if they hurt
> > my girl that I object" just doesn't cut it.
> > And look at it from Dumbledore's point of view. Snape falls for 
> > Lily, the DEs want to hurt Lily, so Snape defects? Well, bully for 
> > him. And what happens if, a little down the line, he falls for 
> > another girl and she's on the DEs side? I wouldn't trust a spy
like 
> > that any further than I could throw him. 
> > No, I think that somewhere down the line Snape came to genuinely 
> > hate Voldy and everything the DEs stood for....<
> 
> I think I haven't made my theory clear.  It's not that Snape
thought  
> "Hey, I'll join whatever side has the girl I like on it!"  It's that 
> for the first time, Snape truly empathized with one of Voldy's 
> potential victims.  Voldy always dehumanized his victims and
presented 
> them as just a bunch of worthless muggles, mud-bloods, and 
> muggle-lovers, but this time the intended victim was someone Snape 
> knew well and cared about.  This brought home the fact that the
Death 
> Eaters were in fact killing good, worthwhile people, not just
faceless 
> scum.  

Hmm.  Well, that does make a lot more sense to me, though I'm  still
not a fan of the Tru Luv angle.  Of course, this theory doesn't
require Tru Luv -- it only requires that Snape care about Lily enough
to emphasize with her suffering (and to extend that empathy to Voldy's
other victims).  That could've happened if Lily was a very good friend
whose judgement he valued.  In the end, I don't think I can make a
final decision on this until we learn something meaningful about Lily
and what sort of person she was.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From lrcjestes at earthlink.net  Wed Feb  6 14:29:38 2002
From: lrcjestes at earthlink.net (siriusgeologist)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 14:29:38 -0000
Subject: Sirius Motivations
In-Reply-To: <a3p4ri+g1kb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3reki+e87i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34748

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:
> Continuing the Snaper/Sirist debate:
> 
> Ok, now on to Sirius' many bad points.
> 
> A lot of people here have given various excuses for "The Prank."  
> However, I don't see the prank on Snape as the worst thing Sirius 
has 
> done.  Instead, I think it's his actions in PoA.  Sirius has 
this "I'm 
> going to get revenge on Peter single-handedly, no matter what it 
> costs" attitude that causes other people a lot of suffering.  


I don't really see revenge as Sirius' primary motivator for his 
actions in PoA.  Sirius broke out of Azkaban for one primary reason.  
To keep Harry from being killed by Pettigrew, whom he alone knew was 
working for Voldie.  If you look at Sirius' actions in PoA in light 
of a person desperate to keep Harry safe rather than one bent on 
revenge, I think we learn more about Sirius' character than if we 
assume it was selfish motivations that led to his destructive 
behavior in PoA.

If revenge was his primary motivator why did it take Sirius 12 years 
to break out.  He only got up the determination to get himself out 
once he knew where Pettigrew was and knew he was a serious threat to 
Harry. 

On the point of why he didn't enlist help, he knew everyone in the 
wizard community (including Dumbledore who testified to the ministry 
against him) thought he was Voldie's second.  He didn't think anyone 
would believe his story of Pettigrew being alive and definitely had 
no reason to trust anyone with protecting Harry because noone knew 
what Pettigrew was capable of (or even alive for that matter) except 
him.

Add the desperate need to keep Harry safe (he'd promised Lily and 
James that he would if anything had happened to them, plus he still 
feels completely and totally responsible for James and Lily getting 
killed) to 12 years of mental torture (bad enough that most go insane 
and die after a couple years) and knowing he is being hunted and 
pursued by the whole wizard and muggle community after his escape and 
I'm not surprised he isn't even more desperate.

Halloween night was his best opportunity to get at Scabbers.  All the 
students are at the Halloween Party, Get in...get the rat...no 
students...and here is the painting preventing his long awaited 
goal.  Not at all surprising he didn't go off a bit on the Fat Lady, 
particularly if he was suffering from PTSD (a theory of which I am a 
strong supporter) and bingo...dissociation and blackout.  I would be 
awfully surprised if he even remembers slashing the Fat Lady, or 
slashing Ron's bed curtains.  I'm not even sure he would remember all 
that happened in the shrieking shack.

OK I've gone on long enough.  But I certainly believe Sirius has some 
really good traits that have been glimpsed...loyalty to an extreme, 
respect for the trio, intelligence, magical talent, commitment to 
Harry, in addition to being dead sexy.

Carole
A serious Sirius defender




From alexp at alltel.net  Wed Feb  6 14:37:55 2002
From: alexp at alltel.net (Greg Pyron)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:37:55 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 1648
In-Reply-To: <1012984206.744.72654.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <OJECJNFKJKLAIKEAMJKFIEEBCEAA.alexp@alltel.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34749


Tabouli wrote:


Ahaaaa! (Captain Tabouli beams broadly).  Congratulations, Judy - your
wisdom and sound deductive powers have just won you a free berth on the Good
Ship LOLLIPOPS (Love Of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Severus)!  Welcome
aboard, welcome aboard.  We have a friendly and colourful crew on deck, and
are always open to new recruits.  However, as Captain, it is my duty to warn
you that taking the "pure speculation" line may impede your chances of
promotion.  My senior crew members and I hold that there is, in fact, quite
a bit of canon evidence keeping us afloat. Refer to my 6th of November post
"Severus Snape: The grudge and the very long LOLLIPOPS biography" (and, for
that matter, my 12th of January post "Survivor Snape: LOLLIPOPS sails
again!" which you may not have recognised as supporting this theory at the
time...)

As first mate of the good ship L.O.L.LI.P.O.P.S, I feel I should elucidate
my position. I HATE SNAPE. He is a cruel, sadistic, immature coward who has
nothing better to do than pick on innocent people like Neville. I like
Lollipops, because it better explains his hatred or Harry, but I do not loke
Snape. I think JKR intends for Snape to be a nasty, irredeemable, horrible
person. I have anew acronym for Snape Haters, (Not trying to infringe on
T.A.G.S., of course:~)  S.I.S.S.Y.C.O.W.A.R.D.
Sadistic, Immature Severus Snape; Yellow Coward, Offensive, With Absolutely
Reproachable Demeanor

Alex









From Caeser56 at si.rr.com  Wed Feb  6 08:09:43 2002
From: Caeser56 at si.rr.com (caes56)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 08:09:43 -0000
Subject: Eureka! Snape and The Maruader's Map!
Message-ID: <a3qoc7+cp7o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34750

Hey guys, I'm sorry to be the one, but someone's gotta kill 90% of 
this debate and quick! first off, here are some portions of the 
debate I am talking about:


---Serenadust Quoting Cindysphynx Quoting Pippen-----

> Pippin wrote (about Snape questioning Lupin about the Map):
> 
> > I am kicking myself, because I should have realized this as soon 
> > as I finished GoF. The name Snape recognizes from the Map is 
> > *Wormtail*. He doesn't know it from Hogwarts, he knows it from 
> > being a Death Eater, and (this is the kicker) he 
thinks "Wormtail" 
> > is Voldemort's code name for the traitor *Sirius Black*. 
>

-------------------

----Finwich:------
Not necessarily. Not if P was 'going rat', as he was most of the 
time. The Trio did NOT see Rita Skeeter the beatle, remember?
-------------

-----Serenadust's Actual writing:-----

Hang on here. I believe that the book indicates that Lupin saw 
both Sirius Blacks and Peter's names on the map and that was what 
brought him running to the Shrieking Shack (although why he left the 
map behind for Snape to find, I can't imagine). Shouldn't Snape 
have seen both Pettigrews AND Blacks names on the map? 

Jo Serenadust


------------


   This is where it gets to be important- Serenadust is correct. The 
canon states in very specific terms that the Marauder's Map shows 
not only Siruis, but Pettigrew as well. I know you already pointed 
out the canon's terms, Serenadust, but since some people 
understandably forgot what the books actually state, here is the 
particular spot you all may wish to read:

PoA, end of Chapter 17, page 348 American Version:

...,said Lupin..."20 minutes later, you left Hagrid, and set off 
back towards the castle. But you were now accompanied by somebody 
else."
     "What?" said Harry. "No, we weren't!"
     "I couldn't beleve my eyes, " said Lupin..."I thought the map 
must be malfunctioning. How could he be with you?"...[harry objects 
again]..."And then i saw another dot, moving fast toward you, 
labeled Sirius Black. . . . I saw him collide with you; I watched as 
he pulled two of you into the Whomping Willow-"...[Ron interrupts 
Lupin, who asks for the rat- Pettigrew. Ron objects to Lupin ad 
Sirius' statements that Scabbers isn't a rat, and finally]..."No, 
he's not,"said Lupin quietly."He's a wizard."
      "An Animagus," said Black, "by the name of Peter Pettigrew."

     This little snippet explains in detail all we need to know. The 
relative events, starting from Hermione's finding of Scabbers, and 
their consequences are as follows:
  1) Hermione finds Scabbers in Hagrid's hut, and Ron grabs him.
  2) The trio leave Hagrid's hut to go back to the castle, but are 
interrupted by Crookshanks, and Scabbers gets away from Ron. 
  3) Ron, followed by Hermione and Harry, run to the forest to get 
Scabbers.
  4) Ron finally grabs Scabbers at the foot of the Whomping Willow.
  5) This is where Lupin spots the trio on the map- with Pettigrew, 
NOT Wormtail listed.
  6)Black,-a BIG hint here, though easily missed- in his Animagus 
form of a dog, grabs Ron and summarily Scabbers and drags them into 
the Whomping Willow. 
  7) As the quote above states, Lupin SPECIFICALLY states that he 
saw a dot labeled Sirius Black. If Peter as a rat were labeled 
as "Wormtail," then Sirius should have been "Padfoot." But he 
wasn't. So, Lupin specifically saw Peter Pettigrew, NOT Wormtail. 
     Another point of logic to this might also be considered- even 
if you don't buy the above statement- and I'd seriously have to 
wonder why you wouldn't- why would the dot show up as "Wormtail" 
anyways? Wouldn't "Scabbers" take precedence? By this I mean to say 
that Pettigrew only learned how to become an Animagus late in his 
years at Hogwarts- I don't feel like doing the math, but I vaguely 
remember the end result being that the Marauders finally learned it 
by their 4th or 5th year. For the sake of this dispute, we'll give 
the benefit of the doubt and say 4th year. so that make 4 years 
Pettigrew was known as Wormtail(counting the 4th year into the 
equation). But right after the LV encounter, Pettigrew becomes a pet 
for the Weasleys, becoming known as "Scabbers." This goes on for 12 
years- 13, counting PoA. So wouldn't that name take precedence over 
Wormtail, as Pettigrew was know as Scabbers for over 12 years?
   Well, it's late here and I have a morning class later in 5 hours 
or so. I think i should sleep- I'm going to hate myself in the 
morning. I hope this helped you guys, and girls as well! So, to all 
still up, Good Night! And to all who read this during the day, have 
a Good Day!

Sincerely Yours,
   Vin






From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Wed Feb  6 15:36:23 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 15:36:23 -0000
Subject: Sirius Motivations:"The Prank was Snape's Fault
In-Reply-To: <a3reki+e87i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3rihn+6i7e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34751

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "siriusgeologist" <lrcjestes at e...> wrote:


> Sirius broke out of Azkaban for one primary reason.  
> To keep Harry from being killed by Pettigrew, whom he alone knew
was 
> working for Voldie. 

One thing here still bothers me.  Would Cowardly Petigrew have 
attempted to kill Harry before finding V and recovering him?  I think 
not. He had three years to do it, and didn't.

> Carole
> A serious Sirius defender

I guess I'm in the Club.  AFAIKT, Cannon doesn't tell us Sirius' 
motive for the prank, i.e. why Serius Told Snape about the Shack.
I think Snape spiked Serius' pumpkin juice with Veritaserum and
caused him thus to babble.  Recall in GF that he threatened to do
this to Harry.

So, why didn't Serius explain that he had been juiced?  He may not
know about it, himself.  If the serum is anything like Imperius,
what you do just seems like a good thing to do, at the time. So,
Serius himself my not know why he did it.

Tex





From cindysphynx at home.com  Wed Feb  6 16:02:45 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 16:02:45 -0000
Subject: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 2
In-Reply-To: <a3rbmp+prn6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3rk35+10g4s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34752

Judy wrote:

>However, Cindy's theory was more along the lines of Snape
> going 
> > to Dumbledore and saying "Hey, I don't like my position in 
Voldy's 
> > organization.  Will you give me a better deal if I turn in all my 
> > friends?"  This would definitely *not* be a reason to trust him.  

Hey, wait!  That's not my theory.  Or, well, that's not the best spin 
to put on my theory because it sounds really lame when you put it 
that way.  :-)

If Marina can name her theory "George," then I will name mine "Prince 
of Lies."  It isn't that Snape was playing a cagey game of office 
politics.  It is that he realized that he was being used for 
his ::cough:: brilliant talents, but that in the final analysis, 
Voldemort would torture and disrespect him, just like Wormtail.  The 
Death Eaters weren't about noble causes ::cough:: like purity of 
blood, as Karkaroff said when Snape joined the Death Eaters.  They 
were about torturing and killing innocents, and Voldemort was not 
above torturing his own supposedly-valued servants like Snape.  Snape 
had been deceived about what Voldemort was really about, and Snape's 
own mistreatment finally brought that point home; Snape couldn't deny 
it any more once he was writhing around on the ground.  

Once Snape saw the truth, he realized he had made a mistake.  He 
couldn't simply flee; he would be hunted down and killed.  He had to 
be on Dumbledore's team or he was doomed.  So he proposed returning 
to Dumbledore's team.  It was Dumbledore, not Snape, who required 
concrete proof of Snape's change of heart (ambush?).  

In a way, Snape's conversion wasn't noble.  It was primarily an act 
of self-preservation.  Fleeing would result in certain death.  
Joining Dumbledore entailed risk, true, but it had the advantage of 
allowing Snape a certain amount of revenge against Voldemort and the 
Death Eaters.  Snape would be risking his life to bring down the 
Prince of Lies.  This is consistent with Snape's vindictive, grudge-
bearing personality.

Although I agree that empathy with victims can cause someone to 
change sides, I also think having one really nasty experience (like 
being disrespected and tortured and demeaned) can take all of the fun 
out of being a Death Eater also.  Having Snape's conversion rest on 
one of those fuzzy, heart-warming flashbacks to stolen moments with 
Lily in the cold dungeon will make me want to hurl.

On balance, I have to place myself in the camp of people who think 
Tabouli is onto something with L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S., but who 
desperately want Snape's motivation for switching sides to be 
something else. Good heavens, if Lily rejects Snape at Hogwarts, 
marries James and has a child by James, doesn't Snape get over this 
at some point?  Why isn't it equally likely that Snape would love to 
see Lily die as revenge for not loving him?  You know, "If I can't 
have her, nobody can have her?"  Indeed, given Snape's unforgiving 
and vindictive personality, isn't that scenario more likely than that 
Snape changes sides in the war because of LUV of Lily? 

On the other hand, I think that L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. is a great theory 
to explain why Snape is mean to Harry.  If Snape is resentful that he 
could never have Lily, he would detest the product of her union with 
his nemesis.  That he would risk is life in a failed attempt to 
protect her after what she did to him is a stretch, IMHO.

Cindy (unclear on how we will ever find out the truth about Snape's 
backstory given the limits of Harry's POV, given that Sirius is 
clueless, and Dumbledore is tight-lipped)




From cindysphynx at home.com  Wed Feb  6 16:12:52 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 16:12:52 -0000
Subject: Snape vs. Sirius, round 2
In-Reply-To: <a3q97c+itd6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3rkm4+v4lk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34753

Devin wrote:

>I agree with what someone said earlier that it 
> would really take a lot of trust to send a letter to any authority, 
> even with the sentence "Pettigrew is Ron Weasley's rat."  Yes, 
> someone as prudent as Dumbledore would indeed check that out, but 
> once again, fresh out of a place like Azkaban, even months out of 
> such a place, one isn't thinking clearly

How does Sirius know that Dumbledore doesn't hate every bone in 
Sirius' body?  Indeed, from Sirius' POV, it surely looks that way.  
Dementors are at Hogwarts, and Sirius thinks Dumbledore put them 
there to kill him.  Sirius knows Dumbledore has to believe Sirius was 
a traitor and spy.  Why should he trust Dumbledore?

Rather than ask why Sirius didn't trust Dumbledore, shouldn't we be 
asking why Sirius didn't trust Lupin?  I think the answer is the 
same:  Sirius believes everyone in the wizarding world believes him 
guilty.  For all Sirius knows, Lupin may relish the opportunity to 
avenge James' death.

Devin again:

>So, was Sirius 
> justified in attacking the Fat Lady?  No, of course not.  But he 
> wanted to find Pettigrew, couldn't trust anyone but Crookshanks at 
> that point, and was understandably upset when he couldn't get in 
> there and get Pettigrew out.  

I've never believed Sirius slashed the Fat Lady solely out of anger.  
Sirius used to be a student at Hogwarts.  He knows the paintings are 
fabric, and the subjects in them can move out of the way.  Sirius 
figures if he cuts the fabric, he can enter the porthole.  I suspect 
that there is something solid behind the fabric, but Sirius doesn't 
know this.  So he slashes, hoping he can enter, only to find the way 
barred by something solid.  (Otherwise, how do we explain Sirius' 
failure to continue on through the portrait hole to the dorm?)

Cindy 




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Feb  6 17:10:11 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 17:10:11 -0000
Subject: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 2
In-Reply-To: <a3rk35+10g4s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3ro1j+4u5f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34754

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

> Once Snape saw the truth, he realized he had made a mistake.  He 
> couldn't simply flee; he would be hunted down and killed.  He had to 
> be on Dumbledore's team or he was doomed.  So he proposed returning 
> to Dumbledore's team.  It was Dumbledore, not Snape, who required 
> concrete proof of Snape's change of heart (ambush?).  
> 
> In a way, Snape's conversion wasn't noble.  It was primarily an act 
> of self-preservation.  Fleeing would result in certain death.  
> Joining Dumbledore entailed risk, true, but it had the advantage of 
> allowing Snape a certain amount of revenge against Voldemort and the 
> Death Eaters.  Snape would be risking his life to bring down the 
> Prince of Lies.  This is consistent with Snape's vindictive, grudge-
> bearing personality.

My problem with this theory is that it doesn't properly account for
Snape's mission at the end of GoF.  If Snape defected from the DE
cause they treated him badly, and cut a deal with Dumbledore to save
his neck and get revenge -- well, he accomplished both those things
fifteen years ago.  Why stick his precious neck out again now, when
the safest thing for him to do is to lie low at Hogwarts or to run?
Karakoff, who we *know* cut a deal to save his neck, is slinking off
with his tail between his neck, but Snape is sticking around and,
apparently, going right back into the viper pit.  Not the behavior of
a man who's only out for himself.

> 
> Although I agree that empathy with victims can cause someone to 
> change sides, I also think having one really nasty experience (like 
> being disrespected and tortured and demeaned) can take all of the
fun 
> out of being a Death Eater also.  Having Snape's conversion rest on 
> one of those fuzzy, heart-warming flashbacks to stolen moments with 
> Lily in the cold dungeon will make me want to hurl.

I'll join you in opposition to anything warm and fuzzy when it comes
to Snape.  Save the warm fuzzies for a more suitable character, like
Hagrid or Harry.  As a proud adherent of S.P.A.C.E.M.A.N., I love my
Snape just the way he is, prickly and slimy.  Yet brave and
principled.

Marina (going off to cuddle George)
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From ritadarling at ivillage.com  Wed Feb  6 16:41:39 2002
From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (Rita F)
Date: 6 Feb 2002 08:41:39 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 2
Message-ID: <20020206164139.11824.cpmta@c006.snv.cp.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34755

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020206/49ef0843/attachment.ksh>

From devin.smither at yale.edu  Wed Feb  6 17:07:46 2002
From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 17:07:46 -0000
Subject: Sirius Motivations:"The Prank was Snape's Fault
In-Reply-To: <a3rihn+6i7e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3rnt2+fi9k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34756

Tex wrote:

> I guess I'm in the Club.  AFAIKT, Cannon doesn't tell us Sirius' 
> motive for the prank, i.e. why Serius Told Snape about the Shack.
> I think Snape spiked Serius' pumpkin juice with Veritaserum and
> caused him thus to babble.  Recall in GF that he threatened to do
> this to Harry.
> 
> So, why didn't Serius explain that he had been juiced?  He may not
> know about it, himself.  If the serum is anything like Imperius,
> what you do just seems like a good thing to do, at the time. So,
> Serius himself my not know why he did it.

Hmmm...well, I have my doubts about the whole Veritaserum theory.  
Yes, Snape is often angry for no good reason, but I doubt even Snape 
could be angry at Sirius for endangering him if the only reason 
Sirius endangered him was that he was under the influence of 
Veritaserum.  I think it was just a dumb, very stupid and childish 
thing Sirius did, and I LIKE Sirius, so there ya go.

Devin





From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Wed Feb  6 17:51:56 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 17:51:56 -0000
Subject: Snape vs. Sirius, round 2 cont'd
In-Reply-To: <a3q97c+itd6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3rqfs+hcet@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34757

"uilnslcoap" <devin.smither at y...> wrote:
> I don't want to convince people who don't like Sirius to like him.  
> I just want them to not hate him or dislike him so savagely as they 
> do.  

Devin, for the record, I don't hate Sirius.  I don't even "savagely 
dislike him."  I just don't particularly *like* him.  He doesn't have 
the sort of personality that I like.  He rubs me the wrong way.  And I 
felt that people here were overlooking an awful amount of bad behavior 
on his part. 

Devin continued:
> [Sirius] was James Potter's best friend, laughed at his wedding 
> to Lily.  He must've been quite something as a human being, 
> actually, to have been a friend, THE friend, one might argue, to 
> the Potters. 

Well, sure, he had friends at school.  I'm not saying he's so awful 
that he had no friends.  In fact, he seems quite loyal to his friends. 
 The problem is, he's not nice to other people.  Basically, he reminds 
me of the popular type of kid at school who seemed to think that 
everyone else existed for his amusement.  He played practical jokes on 
*lots* of people, canon says, not just Snape.  He's sorry if something 
bad happens to one of his friends, but he couldn't care less if 
anything bad happens to anyone else, not even if it happened *because* 
of him.  (Hmm, maybe on second thought, I *do* savagely dislike him.  
But I don't hate him.) 

Yeah, I know you probably aren't interpreting Sirius that way.  But I 
am. And that's absolutely nothing in canon to suggest he was any other 
way.  


Ok, about Azkaban.  JKR says the dementors represent depression, and 
they certainly are written that way.  Depression tends to increase 
remorse, not decrease it.  I think the people who say that is why 
Sirius blames himself for James' and Lily's deaths are on to 
something.  However, Azkaban certainly can't explain Black's lack of 
remorse towards other people. 

As for whether Azkaban is still an excuse for Black's violent 
behavior, even 10 months later, I don't think so. First of all, PTSD 
rarely makes people violent, unless they were that way to begin with. 
 Even more importantly, we know that Hagrid recovers almost 
immediately after leaving Azkaban; he says so.  (He says something 
like "it was like being born again.")  And, it's repeatedly said that 
Azkaban has much less effect on Black than on other people. Would 
someone really recover emotionally immediately after 12 years in a 
horrible place like Azkaban?  In real life, probably not.  But, based 
on JKR's writing, they do in the Potterverse. 


Siriusgeologist said:
> I don't really see revenge as Sirius' primary motivator for his 
> actions in PoA. Sirius broke out of Azkaban for one primary reason. 
> To keep Harry from being killed by Pettigrew, whom he alone knew was 
> working for Voldie.

Well, if that was Sirius' motivations, that would put him in a better 
light.  But, I don't see how it can be.  If Sirius just had a selfless 
desire to protect Harry, why didn't he just bite Ron's pocket and eat 
Scabbers?  Or, why not grab Ron's wand with his teeth, transform, and 
attack Peter?  Instead, he seems to go through this whole "I'm going 
to drag Peter into the Shack so I can make him suffer" thing. 


Now, on to Snape....

Marina says the "Snape left the DEs because of Lily" theory makes more 
sense now that's it's been explained better.  However, she says she's 
> still not a fan of the Tru Luv angle. 
Cindy concurs, saying:
> Having Snape's conversion rest on one of those fuzzy, heart-warming 
> flashbacks to stolen moments with Lily in the cold dungeon will make 
> me want to hurl.

Good news! The Lollipops theory doesn't require any actual 
relationship between Snape and Lily!  No warm fuzzy moments required! 
I tend to see it as Snape loving Lily from afar, never even letting on 
how about he felt about her because he felt sure she'd reject him. So, 
it rests more on the tortured, twisted view of the universe that we've 
all come to expect (and maybe love) from Snape. 


Cindy had more to say about her "Snape betrayed his friends" theory:
> Once Snape saw the truth, he realized he had made a mistake. He 
> couldn't simply flee; he would be hunted down and killed. He had to 
> be on Dumbledore's team or he was doomed.

Marina has pointed out one problem with this theory, namely that Snape 
is *still* willing to risk his neck for Dumbledore 14 years later.  
I'll point out another problem.  I think if Snape was just acting out 
of self-preservation, Dumbledore might help him as long as he was in 
actual danger.  But I don't think Dumbledore would trust Snape, and I 
don't think Dumbledore would *care* about him.  And, at the end of 
GoF, it's clear that Dumbledore is genuinely worried about Snape.  I 
think this is the strongest argument that Snape isn't all bad -- 
Dumbledore actually cares about him, and puts up with quite a lot from 
him.  So, there must be something good in there somewhere. 



Alex ("Greg Pyron") said:
> As first mate of the good ship L.O.L.LI.P.O.P.S, I feel I should 
> elucidate my position. I HATE SNAPE....

Certainly, one can believe that Snape loved Lily without actually 
loving (or liking, or even just not hating) Snape.  So, that's fine. 
No problem at all.  My eyes will just "glitter with malice" every time 
I see you on board.  Oh, and in the mess hall, you might want to sniff 
your pumpkin juice carefully before you drink it.  (I hope no one 
thinks that was a sirius, er, um, I meant serious, threat.) 

Speaking of the good ship L.O.L.LI.P.O.P.S, I wrote a long post on 
that last night, and it still hasn't shown up. I guess I'll wait a few 
more hours before reposting it. 

-- Judy




From cindysphynx at home.com  Wed Feb  6 18:01:00 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 18:01:00 -0000
Subject: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 2
In-Reply-To: <a3ro1j+4u5f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3rr0s+10vj0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34758

Marina wrote (about the Prince of Lies theory):

> My problem with this theory is that it doesn't properly account for
> Snape's mission at the end of GoF.  If Snape defected from the DE
> cause they treated him badly, and cut a deal with Dumbledore to save
> his neck and get revenge -- well, he accomplished both those things
> fifteen years ago.  Why stick his precious neck out again now, when
> the safest thing for him to do is to lie low at Hogwarts or to run?
> Karakoff, who we *know* cut a deal to save his neck, is slinking off
> with his tail between his neck, but Snape is sticking around and,
> apparently, going right back into the viper pit.  Not the behavior 
of
> a man who's only out for himself.

Yes, this is a problem, isn't it?  ::looks down at keyboard, shifts 
uncomfortably in chair::

Oddly, this is a problem under all of the theories.  Under Prince of 
Lies, Snape continues to risk his neck past the point at which he 
obtained revenge.  (Although I can see why Snape would rather go on 
offense and start spying again rather than live the rest of his life 
jumping at small noises as he hides from Voldemort.)

It's also a problem under the Snape loves Lily theory, because Snape 
continues to risk his neck after GoF when Lily is dead, dead, dead.  
That must have been some torrid love affair for Snape to be willing 
to return to spying to avenge the memory of someone who has been dead 
for 14 years, who never loved him anyway, who married his nemesis, 
blah, blah, blah.  I'd have to question Snape's mental stability if 
love of Lily's corpse keeps him spying after GoF.

Under George . . . who knows?  In don't understand George yet, 
although I'll bet he is really adorable.  :-)

So what did Snape not know or understand when he left Hogwarts that 
he understood better when he returned to Dumbledore, and that still 
persists as a motivation for his continued spying?

Uh, maybe there has to be an additional theory, which, for lack of a 
better name, I will call "Mercy".  Maybe Dumbledore had Snape on the 
ropes in the war and was in a position to blast Snape to little slimy 
pieces.  Dumbledore (inexplicably?) decides to spare Snape's life 
(perhaps requiring the ambush as proof that Snape's conversion was 
true).

So that makes Snape's motivation to continue spying after GoF his 
plain, boring, uninspiring loyalty to Dumbledore, much the same way 
that Snape feels he owes a debt to James for saving Snape's life.  
Dumbledore does spell this out for us quite clearly in PoA:  "When 
one wizard saves another wizard's life, it creates a certain bond 
between them."  If Dumbledore saved or spared Snape's life, then 
Snape is serving Dumbledore because of that magical bond.

Cindy (noting that the Mercy theory is ever-so-dull, hoping that this 
isn't all there is to Snape's backstory, and hoping that there's a 
nasty, violent ambush in there somewhere)




> 
> > 
> > Although I agree that empathy with victims can cause someone to 
> > change sides, I also think having one really nasty experience 
(like 
> > being disrespected and tortured and demeaned) can take all of the
> fun 
> > out of being a Death Eater also.  Having Snape's conversion rest 
on 
> > one of those fuzzy, heart-warming flashbacks to stolen moments 
with 
> > Lily in the cold dungeon will make me want to hurl.
> 
> I'll join you in opposition to anything warm and fuzzy when it comes
> to Snape.  Save the warm fuzzies for a more suitable character, like
> Hagrid or Harry.  As a proud adherent of S.P.A.C.E.M.A.N., I love my
> Snape just the way he is, prickly and slimy.  Yet brave and
> principled.
> 
> Marina (going off to cuddle George)
> rusalka at i...




From alexpie at aol.com  Wed Feb  6 17:59:31 2002
From: alexpie at aol.com (alexpie at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:59:31 EST
Subject: Yet Another Snape Theory
Message-ID: <d.21bb3caa.2992c903@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34759

Apologies if something similar has appeared; I have trouble reading the 
digest when it appears as a download.
  JKR stated that she envisioned Snape in SS as "35 or 36."  Now, then, that 
would make him about 14 years old at the time of Voldemort's rise to power.  
That, coupled with his knowledge of the dark arts upon his arrival at 
Hogwarts, leads me to believe that he came from a family of Death Eaters, a 
la Malfoy and his cohorts.  Thus, one could say he didn't necessarily make a 
conscious choice (except for the choice to leave V).  Another possibility is 
that he joined the Death Eaters in his late teens or early twenties (he had 
to have left by 24 or so, it was over when he was 25) to avenge the death of 
his parents, only to desert when he found Voldemort and his crew too 
reprehensible for him to deal with. That would explain a great deal of his 
bitterness (he has now joined the side that destroyed his family), and 
perhaps, his attraction/repulsion (I mean in a basic emotional, not 
romantic/sexual, sense) to Harry, who grew up under the cloud of parents 
being murdered as well.
  On another note, I was falling asleep on the couch last night when a brief 
news report aired about some grammar school children breaking out in 
rashes--I heard it as "breaking out in in rats," and was very disappointed 
when I realized it wasn't a report from Hogwarts...
 Ba (who was Barbara, until another Barbara joined the list, then Barb until 
another Barb joined the list, and will doubtless be just "B" soon.)


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





From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Wed Feb  6 18:25:25 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 18:25:25 -0000
Subject: First Harry Potter Website?
Message-ID: <a3rsel+uoi7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34760

Just out of curioisity, does anyone know when the very first HP 
website went online?

   - CMC




From pennylin at swbell.net  Wed Feb  6 18:40:59 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 12:40:59 -0600
Subject: Snape vs. Sirius, round 2 cont'd
References: <a3rqfs+hcet@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C6178BB.1090808@swbell.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34761

Hi --

I can't believe I'm chiming in on this as I usually avoid all Snape 
threads (more because I can't *keep up* with all the theories than 
because I hate his character or find him boring).  For the record, I 
fall into the camp of liking Snape's complexity (though not his 
treatment of students) AND liking Sirius (I like *everything* about 
Sirius though).

judyserenity wrote:


> Well, sure, he had friends at school.  I'm not saying he's so awful
> that he had no friends.  In fact, he seems quite loyal to his friends.
> The problem is, he's not nice to other people.  Basically, he reminds
> me of the popular type of kid at school who seemed to think that
> everyone else existed for his amusement.  He played practical jokes on
> *lots* of people, canon says, not just Snape.

Perhaps I've forgotten something (it's been awhile since I chimed in on 
a Sirius debate), but where in canon is the notion that Sirius played 
practical jokes on *lots* of people?  All I'm recalling is the 
conversation amongst the teachers at the pub -- in referring to *both* 
Sirius & James, they are described as a *pair* of troublemakers.  They 
made Rosmerta laugh; they are described as bright.  Er .. I don't recall 
anything in canon though that otherwise mentions Sirius alone being a 
practical joker.  In fact, there's no sense from this scene that either 
Sirius or James played pranks on others...just that they were a pair of 
troublemakers.

  He's sorry if something
> bad happens to one of his friends, but he couldn't care less if
> anything bad happens to anyone else, not even if it happened *because*
> of him.  (Hmm, maybe on second thought, I *do* savagely dislike him. 
> But I don't hate him.)

Care to elaborate on what you mean here?

As for Snape & the Prank, there's clearly no love lost between Snape & 
Sirius, even yrs later.  However, we do *NOT* know what Snape did to 
motivate the Prank.  We can conjecture from now till sundown, but until 
OOP or Books 6 or 7 clues us in, we're only guessing.  All we know is 
that Sirius tipped Snape off to go down the tunnel to the Shrieking 
Shack and knew that he'd run into Remus the Werewolf.  We know also that 
James knew about Sirius' prank at some point & saved Snape's life.  We 
don't know *when* James learned of the Prank.  We don't know the dynamic 
of the relationship(s) between Sirius, James, Remus, Peter and Snape. 
In short, we don't know much of anything.  Sirius certainly used poor 
judgment.  But, until we know what that greasy-haired Snape guy did to 
cause Sirius to play the Prank, I'm reserving judgment.  :--)

I can't think of where Sirius expresses glee or just disinterest in bad 
things happening to anyone other than Snape though.  Again, what canon 
examples are you relying on?

> 
> Yeah, I know you probably aren't interpreting Sirius that way.  But I
> am. And that's absolutely nothing in canon to suggest he was any other
> way.

Au contraire.  <g>  All canon suggests is that Sirius *and* James were 
bright students, ringleaders of their "little gang," and a *pair* of 
troublemakers (or at least this is all I'm recalling .. I may be due for 
a re-read).  While many of us may be projecting from these glimpses of 
Hogwarts-era Sirius that he was a ladies man, a flirt, a "popular" kid 
who looked down on anyone outside his circle & the typical jock/popular 
kid stereotype, the truth is that all we know is that he was bright, a 
leader of his "little gang" (which was probably just him, James, Remus & 
Peter really) and a bit of a "troublemaker."  What's a "troublemaker"? 
It *might* be someone who plays practical jokes on others, 
thoughtlessly.  Then again, it *might* be just someone prone to making 
wise-ass comments to the teachers.

  
> As for whether Azkaban is still an excuse for Black's violent
> behavior, even 10 months later, I don't think so. First of all, PTSD
> rarely makes people violent, unless they were that way to begin with.

Source please?  <g>  We've had *alot* of discussions about PTSD, and 
while Carole & Monika are way more knowledgeable than I am, that 
statement hits me wrong.  Someone close to me recently suffered from 
PTSD; he's not normally violent but did have violent outbursts in the 
course of this condition.

> Even more importantly, we know that Hagrid recovers almost
> immediately after leaving Azkaban; he says so.

Hagrid wasn't guilty of anything.  Hagrid is & was basically a happy 
person.  Once he recovered his happy memories, it's no surprise to me 
that he'd recover quickly enough.  Sirius, OTOH, has alot of depression, 
guilt, remorse working.  Hagrid was also imprisoned for what 2 mths? 
Sirius was there for 12 *years.*  Besides, Azkaban wasn't the triggering 
event for Sirius' PTSD, so escaping Azkaban isn't going to miraculously 
fix that for him.  His triggering event was when he learned of the 
Potters' deaths and/or his confrontation with Wormtail later the next 
day.  He would still be manifesting symptoms of PTSD, even after 
escaping from the malfeasance of the Dementors.  He still has the PTSD 
in GoF I'm sure ... we just didn't see him in the right situations to 
see the manifestations.  I'd bet money we'll see more of that in OOP.

> Siriusgeologist said:
>  > I don't really see revenge as Sirius' primary motivator for his
>  > actions in PoA. Sirius broke out of Azkaban for one primary reason.
>  > To keep Harry from being killed by Pettigrew, whom he alone knew was
>  > working for Voldie.

Judy responded:

 
> Well, if that was Sirius' motivations, that would put him in a better
> light.  But, I don't see how it can be.  If Sirius just had a selfless
> desire to protect Harry, why didn't he just bite Ron's pocket and eat
> Scabbers?  Or, why not grab Ron's wand with his teeth, transform, and
> attack Peter?  Instead, he seems to go through this whole "I'm going
> to drag Peter into the Shack so I can make him suffer" thing.

Well, he might be motivated both by concern for Harry & a desire to 
clear his name.  He can be primarily motivated by concern for Harry's 
protection and secondarily cognizant that killing the rat doesn't really 
end his own personal troubles.  Staying a wanted criminal in the 
wizarding world doesn't help his godson much after all, aside from his 
own personal desires to stop living in hiding.  If he'd *eaten* 
Scabbers, he'd have destroyed the one shred of evidence that would clear 
his name & allow him to live a normal life in the wizarding world again. 
  Question: if he'd *killed* Scabbers in his rat form but not eaten him 
as a dog, could some spell have transformed the dead Scabbers into a 
dead Pettigrew???  I don't know ...just wondering.  But, Sirius has 
never struck me as vengeful so much as interested in protecting Harry & 
clearing his own name.

> 
> Cindy concurs, saying:
>  > Having Snape's conversion rest on one of those fuzzy, heart-warming
>  > flashbacks to stolen moments with Lily in the cold dungeon will make
>  > me want to hurl.

Judy says:

> 
> Good news! The Lollipops theory doesn't require any actual
> relationship between Snape and Lily!  No warm fuzzy moments required!
> I tend to see it as Snape loving Lily from afar, never even letting on
> how about he felt about her because he felt sure she'd reject him. So,
> it rests more on the tortured, twisted view of the universe that we've
> all come to expect (and maybe love) from Snape.

I definitely agree with Judy here.  I don't see it as ever having been a 
relationship between Snape & Lily.  I see it as an unrequited love from 
afar sort of thing.  Then again, my pet theory of FITD also hangs on 
some unrequited teenage crushes ... so I'm predisposed to like similar 
theories.  <g>

Penny
(a Sirius defender (is there an acronym?) and a lowly sailor on the Good 
Ship Lollipops)




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Feb  6 18:43:37 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 18:43:37 -0000
Subject: Introducing George (Was Re: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 2)
In-Reply-To: <a3rr0s+10vj0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3rtgp+fspn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34762

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

(About the problem of Snape's GoF mission)

> Yes, this is a problem, isn't it?  ::looks down at keyboard, shifts 
> uncomfortably in chair::
> 
> Oddly, this is a problem under all of the theories.  Under Prince of 
> Lies, Snape continues to risk his neck past the point at which he 
> obtained revenge.  (Although I can see why Snape would rather go on 
> offense and start spying again rather than live the rest of his life 
> jumping at small noises as he hides from Voldemort.)
> 
> It's also a problem under the Snape loves Lily theory, because Snape 
> continues to risk his neck after GoF when Lily is dead, dead, dead.  
> That must have been some torrid love affair for Snape to be willing 
> to return to spying to avenge the memory of someone who has been
dead 
> for 14 years, who never loved him anyway, who married his nemesis, 
> blah, blah, blah.  I'd have to question Snape's mental stability if 
> love of Lily's corpse keeps him spying after GoF.
> 
> Under George . . . who knows?  In don't understand George yet, 
> although I'll bet he is really adorable.  :-)

Okay, that's a good point.  I've mentioned George's name, but I
haven't properly introduced him, have I?  Let me, then expound on my
theory.

First of all, George was partially inspired by an actual real-life
example I read about years ago, a young man who rose to some
prominence in Germany's Neo-Nazi movement in the early 90's, but ended
up quitting the movement and actually working against it.  Voldemort's
obsession with cleansing the wizarding world of "impure" blood is no
too far off from the Nazi agenda, so I think I can legitimately make
the parallel without Godwinizing the discussion. <G>  Anyhow, the
article I read provided some interesting insights into this young
man's motivations, and those insights seemed useful when I started
thinking about Snape.

Now I believe that Snape originally joined the DEs not because he had
any conviction in their <ahem>ideals, but because they were the
enemies of his enemies, and he thought they might treat him decently
and not try to feed him to any werewolves.  (I believe this is
actually consistent with the Prince of Lies theory, Cindy, but correct
me if I'm wrong).  As I've mentioned before, Snape was very young at
the time, probably just out of Hogwarts.  He had a general idea of
what the DEs were up to, and thought he'd be okay with it.  When
you're an nasty, unpopular teenager with a supicious knowledge of Dark
Magic and a conviction that the people currently in charge are out to
get you, it's pretty easy to go around thinking you're evil and even
to get off on the concept (finding it glamorous and empowering, maybe)
-- until someone actually says, "Here, torture this baby," and you
suddenly find that maybe you're not as evil as you thought.

I think that the more time spent with the DEs, the more he became
disenchanted with them.  They were crappy excuses for human beings (or
whatever other kinds of beings they were); their agenda was evil and
destructive; whatever respect they may have given him (assuming they
gave him any -- maybe they didn't) wasn't worth it.  I don't think
there was any one grand epiphany that made Snape realize, "Hey, these
guys are evil and must be opposed," I think it was a gradual process
that eventually reached a point where he had to turn around and do
something, and it's at that point that he went to Dumbledore.

So that's George.  Under George, the GoF mission is not a problem:
Snape opposed the DEs fifteen years ago because he thought they were
scum.  He opposes them now because he still thinks so.  The fact that
he loathes most of the people on the good side is irrelevant. 
Whatever he thinks of Harry Potter, he knows Harry is never going to
go around torturing people to death just because they annoyed him, and
that's enough to make him preferable to Voldemort in Snape's book.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com











From lrcjestes at earthlink.net  Wed Feb  6 19:20:17 2002
From: lrcjestes at earthlink.net (siriusgeologist)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:20:17 -0000
Subject: Snape vs. Sirius, round 2 cont'd
In-Reply-To: <a3rqfs+hcet@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3rvlh+4ddu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34763


I read what Penny on this thread and I want to say..."yeah what she 
said!" (big surprise <grin> But I also want to add a couple things:

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:

> As for whether Azkaban is still an excuse for Black's violent 
> behavior, even 10 months later, I don't think so. First of all, 
PTSD 
> rarely makes people violent, unless they were that way to begin 
with. 

Not necessarily.  PTSD keeps the traumatic event in the subjects 
current time frame, causing them to "relive" the experience and the 
response to the experience over and over.  This causes the body to be 
in a state of hyperarousal of the flight or fight response.  So a 
violent response would not necessarily be out of character following 
a violent causitive trauma.  Additionally, PTSD can cause 
dissociation which causes the subject to suffer a type of 
amnesia...this leads to the possibility of Sirius acting not out of 
malicious intent (to the Fat Lady, to Ron, and even nearly choking 
Harry in the shrieking shack) but as an intuitive response to a 
situation where he isn't in control of his response.  

>  Even more importantly, we know that Hagrid recovers almost 
> immediately after leaving Azkaban; he says so.  (He says something 
> like "it was like being born again.")  And, it's repeatedly said 
that 
> Azkaban has much less effect on Black than on other people. Would 
> someone really recover emotionally immediately after 12 years in a 
> horrible place like Azkaban?  In real life, probably not.  But, 
based 
> on JKR's writing, they do in the Potterverse. 

As Penny pointed out Hagrid's and Sirius' Azkaban stays were quite 
different.  Hagrid was in there for a few months for something he 
knew he did not do.  Sirius was in there under heavy security 
(dementors at his door) for 12 years for something he felt was 
entirely his fault even if he didn't actually do the killing 
himself.  Well...he was in for killing Pettigrew and the 12 muggles, 
and while he knew he didn't do *that*, the circumstances that brought 
him to the street where Pettigrew killed all the muggles was 
something he felt guilt over and suffered remorse to an extreme 
(IMHO).  So certainly Sirius would suffer the effects of Azkaban long 
after Hagrid went on about his merry way.
 
> 
> Siriusgeologist said:
> > I don't really see revenge as Sirius' primary motivator for his 
> > actions in PoA. Sirius broke out of Azkaban for one primary 
reason. 
> > To keep Harry from being killed by Pettigrew, whom he alone knew 
was 
> > working for Voldie.
> 
> Well, if that was Sirius' motivations, that would put him in a 
better 
> light.  But, I don't see how it can be.  If Sirius just had a 
selfless 
> desire to protect Harry, why didn't he just bite Ron's pocket and 
eat 
> Scabbers?  Or, why not grab Ron's wand with his teeth, transform, 
and 
> attack Peter?  Instead, he seems to go through this whole "I'm 
going 
> to drag Peter into the Shack so I can make him suffer" thing. 
> 

Weeeeel, it seems JKR states pretty explicitly that Harry's 
protection is Sirius' motivating factor for his escape from Azkaban.  
I don't have the books at work with me so I can't quote chapter and 
verse, but Sirius states his motivations in the shrieking shack.  Can 
anyone back me up on this?  I'll look when I get home, but as Penny 
pointed out while preserving Harry is his primary motivation (why 
should we doubt what JKR wrote), clearing his name is certainly a 
strong secondary motivation.  Eating Pettigrew on the spot would not 
have been helpful in that regard. Furthermore remember that Black and 
Lupin were ready to kill him in the shrieking shack (I assume they 
would have carried the body to dumbledore in order to clear 
Sirius... )

Carole 




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  6 19:16:19 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:16:19 -0000
Subject: Snape's favoring the Slytherins
Message-ID: <a3rve3+l3kj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34764

First of all, I love Severus, Sirius, and Remus!  All 3 do the right 
thing by saving Harry's life at various points, and by being on 
Dumbledore's side fighting the DE's and LV.  All 3 also have definite 
personality flaws that make them very interesting.

Those who attack Snape frequently cite his obvious favoring of Draco 
and the other Slytherins, and his in-class cruelty to the Gryffindors 
(especially Harry and Neville).  Why does he do this?  
Harry-- Snape hated James; Harry is "just like James."  
Neville- We don't know for certain, but other posts have speculated.  
The Slytherins-  Quite a few of the Slytherin students have parents 
who are DE's (Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle we know of, and there are 
probably more.)  If you were Severus Snape, once and future spy for 
Dumbledore within the DE's, wouldn't you think it prudent to prefer 
the DE's kids over all others in the school?  Should LV ever rise 
again, which Dumbledore and his loyal band anticipate, Snape is their 
best chance at planting a spy within the DE's.  But for it to work, 
it will need to appear to the other DE's as if he has been on their 
side all along, and merely pretending to be loyal to Dumbledore.  His 
overt favoring of Slytherins will be an asset here.  His overt hatred 
of Gryffindors, the same effect.  And yes, I do belive that at the 
end of GoF, Dumbledore did indeed send Snape back to LV.  No wonder 
the poor man went pale at the thought of the task in front of him.  
Did Snape manage to con LV, or is LV just toying with him?  We don't 
know yet.

"jklb66" 




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Wed Feb  6 19:30:36 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:30:36 -0000
Subject: Snape vs. Sirius, round 3
In-Reply-To: <3C6178BB.1090808@swbell.net>
Message-ID: <a3s08s+afnf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34765

Well, I'm spending way too much time here, so I'm going to have to be 
terse; please excuse me.

Penny asked:
 
> Perhaps I've forgotten something (it's been awhile since I chimed in 
> on a Sirius debate), but where in canon is the notion that Sirius 
> played  practical jokes on *lots* of people?<
  
You're right that this isn't explicit in the text.  I think I inferred 
it from the claim that James and Sirius were troublemakers, plus the 
comparison with George and Fred.  (I think George and Fred are 
basically OK, but I really dislike their practical jokes.)  The fact 
that James joined in with Sirius' troublemaking doesn't make me like 
Sirius any better.  (I don't know if I'd like James, I don't know 
enough about him.) 

I said
>> [Sirius is] sorry if something bad happens to one of his friends, 
>>  but he couldn't care less if anything bad happens to anyone else, 
>>  not even if it happened *because* of him. << 

Penny asked:
> Care to elaborate on what you mean here?<

It's in my past few posts.  The high points are breaking Ron's leg, 
slashing the Fat Lady, terrifying everyone in England instead of 
asking Dumbledore for help (yes, some people here have excused that 
but I don't buy it), and never being sorry for any of it, in addition 
to saying Snape deserved "the Prank." 


I also said:
> > As for whether Azkaban is still an excuse for Black's violent
> > behavior, even 10 months later, I don't think so. First of all, 
> > PTSD rarely makes people violent, unless they were that 
> > way to begin with.<<

Penny asked:
> Source please?  <g>  

I don't have time to look up a real source, but I do have a 
Bachelor's, Master's, and PhD in Psychology, and have taught it at the 
university level for 8 years. (I will admit that PTSD isn't my 
specialty, though; in fact, psychopathology in general is out of my 
speciality.) PTSD disorder does greatly raise sympathetic nervous 
system arousal (ie, it raises adrenalin levels) but that on its own 
doesn't usually led to actual violence.  

Penny continued:
> Someone close to me recently suffered from 
> PTSD; he's not normally violent but did have violent outbursts in 
> the course of this condition.

Well, I'm not saying your friend is a naturally violent person, or 
that the PTSD had nothing to do with it, but violence is not the 
typical response to PTSD; fear, withdrawal, and depression are. 


I said: 
> > Even more importantly, we know that Hagrid recovers almost
> > immediately after leaving Azkaban; he says so.<<

Penny responded:
> Hagrid wasn't guilty of anything.  Hagrid is & was basically a happy 
> person. ...Hagrid was also imprisoned for what 2 mths? 
> Sirius was there for 12 *years.*<  

Actually, a number of people here have commented on Hagrid's 
depressive symptoms, which started before he was in Azkaban.  He 
bursts into tears quite easily, for example.  Sirius just doesn't 
strike me as the easily depressed sort.  

Penny added:
> Besides, Azkaban wasn't the triggering
> event for Sirius' PTSD, so escaping Azkaban isn't going to 
> miraculously 
> fix that for him.  His triggering event was when he learned of the 
> Potters' deaths and/or his confrontation with Wormtail later the 
> next day. 

 On Sirius' motivations, Penny said:
> Well, he might be motivated both by concern for Harry & a desire to 
> clear his name.  ... If he'd *eaten* Scabbers,
>  he'd have destroyed the one shred of evidence that would clear 
> his name & allow him to live a normal life in the wizarding world 
> again.  Question: if he'd *killed* Scabbers in his rat form but not 
> eaten him  as a dog, could some spell have transformed the dead
> Scabbers into a dead Pettigrew???  I don't know ...just wondering.  
> But, Sirius has never struck me as vengeful so much as interested in 
> protecting Harry & clearing his own name.<

I was just responding to the claim that Sirius was motivated *solely* 
by a wish to protect Harry.  

As for whether a dead Scabbers could be transformed back, I don't 
know.  Sirius could have grabbed Ron's wand, zapped Peter back into 
man form and *then* AK'd him, though.  (And Sirius seemed to want 
vengence in the Shack scene.  It's not that I blame him for being 
angry, it's just the cost to other people that I object to.) 


I said:
> > Good news! The Lollipops theory doesn't require any actual
> > relationship between Snape and Lily! <<
And Penny replied:
> I definitely agree with Judy here.< 

Yay!  We agree on something!

-- Judy




From cindysphynx at home.com  Wed Feb  6 19:43:32 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:43:32 -0000
Subject: Introducing George (Was Re: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 2)
In-Reply-To: <a3rtgp+fspn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3s114+4ba3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34766

OK, now that we have met George, I suppose we have to flirt with him, 
seduce him, make him ours, and then . . . change him, right?  :-)

***********

Marina wrote:

> Now I believe that Snape originally joined the DEs not because he 
had
> any conviction in their <ahem>ideals, but because they were the
> enemies of his enemies, and he thought they might treat him decently
> and not try to feed him to any werewolves.  (I believe this is
> actually consistent with the Prince of Lies theory, Cindy, but 
correct
> me if I'm wrong).  

Yes, I think our theories converge on this point.  Maybe we can call 
this part Prince George?  :-)  

I think I go a little farther than you do, however.  I believe that 
Snape really did believe in the "purity of blood ideal" plank of the 
Voldemort's platform when he joined the Death Eaters, but that he 
later learned that this was simply a smokescreen for the real purpose 
of Voldemort and the Death Eaters:  evil-doing for fun and profit.  
That's the "Lies" part of the Prince of Lies theory. :-)

I think the reason I have to dispute George's hypothesis that Snape 
only joined the Death Eaters because of The Prank is that it presumes 
Snape had nowhere else to go.  He didn't have to be on Dumbledore's 
team, and he didn't have to be on Voldemort's team.  He could have 
done something else, I would suppose.  I figure the Prank is what 
swayed Snape to act, but that Snape did believe in the purity of 
blood nonsense.  

Can George address that issue?

Marina again:

>I don't think
> there was any one grand epiphany that made Snape realize, "Hey, 
>these
> guys are evil and must be opposed," I think it was a gradual process
> that eventually reached a point where he had to turn around and do
> something, and it's at that point that he went to Dumbledore.

Aw, gee.  This appears to be where we differ.  Doesn't a drastic 
reaction (Snape returning to Dumbledore and spying) require a very 
serious catalyst?  How can it be that Snape just feels gradually more 
out of sorts until he glides over to Hogwarts and hitches his wagon 
to Dumbledore?  Can't we work an ambush in here somewhere?  :-)  

Although I don't buy the Lily Luv theory, it does have the advantage 
of a plausible catalyst:  that Snape learns of the plot to kill the 
Potters and this is sufficient to make him switch sides.  Where I 
differ is that I think that, had Snape learned of the plot against 
the Potters, he would have shrugged and said, "Oh well.  She never 
loved me anyway, so too bad for her."

Marina again:

> So that's George.  Under George, the GoF mission is not a problem:
> Snape opposed the DEs fifteen years ago because he thought they were
> scum.  He opposes them now because he still thinks so.  

Yes, that's true.  George has the advantage of not having a post-GOF 
mission problem.  He does, however, carry the baggage of requiring 
Snape to be rather clueless of what he was getting into when he 
joined Voldemort the first time.  That doesn't sound like Snape.

Cindy (who thinks George is definitely cuddle-worthy)




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Wed Feb  6 19:44:34 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:44:34 -0000
Subject: Why the Veritaserum theory is all wet
In-Reply-To: <a3rnt2+fi9k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3s132+sn26@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34767

Tex wrote:
> >... AFAIKT, Cannon doesn't tell us Sirius' 
> > motive for the prank, i.e. why Serius Told Snape about the Shack.
> > I think Snape spiked Serius' pumpkin juice with Veritaserum and
> > caused him thus to babble. 

Sheesh, will people stop at nothing to malign my poor, misunderstood 
Severus? 

Devin responded: 
> Hmmm...well, I have my doubts about the whole Veritaserum theory.  
> Yes, Snape is often angry for no good reason, but I doubt even Snape 
> could be angry at Sirius for endangering him if the only reason 
> Sirius endangered him was that he was under the influence of 
> Veritaserum.  I think it was just a dumb, very stupid and childish 
> thing Sirius did, and I LIKE Sirius, so there ya go.

Thanks very much, Devin!  I guess some of you Sirists are OK after 
all!

There's a much bigger problem with the "Veritaserum made Sirius talk" 
theory, though.  Think about it.  Ok, suppose 16 year old Snape got 
his hands on carefully controlled Veritaserum, managed to lure Sirius 
away from his friends, and somehow arranged for Sirius to have amnesia 
about the whole thing.  (By the way, that kind of contradicts the 
"Snape is incompetent" theory, doesn't it?)  So, Snape has Sirius 
under the influence of veritaserum.  Snape asks "where does Lupin go 
each month?" Sirius replies "He goes into a tunnel under the Whomping 
Willow.  The tunnel leads to the Shrieking Shack."  

I can pretty much guarantee that the next words out of Snape's mouth 
will be "*Why* does Lupin go to the Shrieking Shack?"  (Or something 
to that effect.)  And, of course veritaserumed Sirius will have to 
reply "Because Lupin is a werewolf."  

Snape would have no reason to go to the Shack after that; the Prank 
would never happen.

-- Judy




From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Wed Feb  6 19:57:59 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:57:59 -0000
Subject: Why the Veritaserum theory is all wet
In-Reply-To: <a3s132+sn26@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3s1s7+1125u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34768

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:
> Tex wrote:
> > >... AFAIKT, Cannon doesn't tell us Sirius' 
> > > motive for the prank, i.e. why Serius Told Snape about the Shack.
> > > I think Snape spiked Serius' pumpkin juice with Veritaserum and
> > > caused him thus to babble. 
> 
> Sheesh, will people stop at nothing to malign my poor, misunderstood 
> Severus? 
> 
> Devin responded: 
> > Hmmm...well, I have my doubts about the whole Veritaserum theory.  
> > Yes, Snape is often angry for no good reason, but I doubt even Snape 
> > could be angry at Sirius for endangering him if the only reason 
> > Sirius endangered him was that he was under the influence of 
> > Veritaserum.  I think it was just a dumb, very stupid and childish 
> > thing Sirius did, and I LIKE Sirius, so there ya go.
> 
And Judy replied:
> Thanks very much, Devin!  I guess some of you Sirists are OK after 
> all!
> 
> There's a much bigger problem with the "Veritaserum made Sirius talk" 
> theory, though.  Think about it.  Ok, suppose 16 year old Snape got 
> his hands on carefully controlled Veritaserum, managed to lure Sirius 
> away from his friends, and somehow arranged for Sirius to have amnesia 
> about the whole thing.  (By the way, that kind of contradicts the 
> "Snape is incompetent" theory, doesn't it?)  So, Snape has Sirius 
> under the influence of veritaserum.  Snape asks "where does Lupin go 
> each month?" Sirius replies "He goes into a tunnel under the Whomping 
> Willow.  The tunnel leads to the Shrieking Shack."  
> 
> I can pretty much guarantee that the next words out of Snape's mouth 
> will be "*Why* does Lupin go to the Shrieking Shack?"  (Or something 
> to that effect.)  And, of course veritaserumed Sirius will have to 
> reply "Because Lupin is a werewolf."  
> 
> Snape would have no reason to go to the Shack after that; the Prank 
> would never happen.
> 
Not only that, Sirius remembers the incident quite clearly and his
attitude when narrating it indicates that he very much did it on purpose.

Nope.  No canon evidence that the Prank is the result of coersion or
anything like unto it.

--Dicentra, who proudly wears her S.I.N.I.S.T.E.R. pin 





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  6 20:01:55 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 20:01:55 -0000
Subject: Sirius vs. Snape: Azcaban recovery.
Message-ID: <a3s23j+560a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34769

I think that:

Sirius had more than one prime motives to escape from Azcaban. Both 
to save Harry and to make Pettigrew pay among others - like proving 
his innocence... Everything he might have wanted, needed and/or 
desired required his getting out of Azcaban. His entire being was 
momentuously aimed at a single goal: Out of Azcaban. This is so great 
a need, so great an emotional thought: "I must get out of here" - 
that it brings that non-wand, non-controlled magic out. That's how he 
escaped. (Being animagus helped, no doubt)

Once he was out, what is he to do?
Option #1: Go to Harry and see he's OK. "Hagrid said he's to live 
with Lily's sister. Go there." (as he did, remember the dog)
Option #2: Get Pettigrew from Weasleys (who at the moment were 
somewhere in Egypt - much too far!).
Option #3: Contact someone with the 'news' - but... Where is he to 
get parchment, ink etc. not to mention an Owl? Nor is Sirius likely 
to think that anyone would /believe/ the 'news' at all.
Under the circumstances, #1 is the only realistic option!

Sirius isn't getting better: He's focused on finding Harry and 
getting him to safety. He's too busy to handle the emotional after-
effect of his torment. He kept all dangers away from Harry (until 
Harry got into the Knight-Bus) while Harry was dealing with his 
emotions so busily he didn't notice anything.
Sirius heard where Harry was headed, I guess - so he went there, 
using some other method. Again, he's concerned of Harry, his own 
Azcaban-trauma is constantly put aside - until later.

Sirius propably saw Harry watching that Firebolt, wanting it so hard, 
but not buying it. Sirius gets a thought: "Poor Harry. I'll buy him 
that Firebolt if it's the last thing I do..." He goes to Gringotts 
(Goblins don't gossip about their customers) and withdraws almost all 
his money, buys some Polyjuice Potion(Knockturn Alley?) and gets a 
hair of some random (drunk?) person. Then he goes to the broom-shop 
and buys that Firebolt, telling the shoppers to send it for Harry 
Potter on Christmas-time. Possibly he also sends a letter to 
Lupin: "Protect Prongs's son".
No more. Lupin will know what it means and who sent it! Sirius sees 
Harry and Lupin going onto same car and gets on the train...

Halloween: Sirius knows that PP has his best oppurtunity with so 
little students around and desperately acts. AIR it was Lupin who 
broke Ron's leg, not Sirius. OK, now Sirius has Lupin to trust, along 
with the Trio. Sirius' acts on Fat Lady, etc. is partly unhandled 
post-traumatic stress from Azcaban, stress and desperation.

His attempt against PP is revenge, protecting Harry and more. He 
doesn't think Harry would get upset for this (wasn't Harry about to 
kill him for the things PP did?). Yet, all it takes is Harry's 
request to stop them both. That single thing shows that Harry's well-
being counts for more than revenge when it comes to Sirius.

And, um, no - Sirius isn't fully recovered yet. He offers Harry a 
home - but realises only afterwards that he might still need time to 
recover (you possibly don't want me to...).

His time in "some place warm with lots of sunlight" helps Sirius to 
recover from his time in Azcaban - at least, now he's able to do so. 
He sends regular letters to Harry, Lupin and Dumbledore. (Giving Ron 
the Owl as an apology with his first letter to Harry...) - Where did 
he get that little owl?

And, for other Person X ought to apologise to Person Y - well, the 
thing about Ron vs. Harry after the Dragon - he didn't need to hear 
it. Same goes with Ron & Harry. They know why - that's enough.

Difference between Snape & Sirius is that Sirius does one repaireable 
thing against Fat Lady, has a fight with Harry and Ron - but only 
once. Plus they were able to do something...

Snape continuously and repeatedly offends Harry, Hermione and Neville 
(and who knows how many others). He's constantly abusing his status 
as teacher, particularly on Neville who can't defend himself and 
punishes those who do - just for anyone not Slytherin having a mind. 
Even when Hermione answers correctly to his questions, he takes 
points! Poor students can do nothing. Nothing. They can't go to 
Dumbledore and complain, because they don't know the password and 
Snape could be there stopping them. It's just plain wrong.

About Hagrid recovering so fast - 1) He had good conditions to 
recover. 2) He stayed for two weeks - considerably lesser time than 
12 years. 3) Hagrid's half-giant (compare to Sirius' Animagi)...




From mdawson.design at dial.pipex.com  Wed Feb  6 19:34:02 2002
From: mdawson.design at dial.pipex.com (Marjorie Dawson)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:34:02 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 2
References: <a3ro1j+4u5f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <015e01c1af45$3c1ca900$2e8bbc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 34770

As a newly joined member of the list I know I have come in to what is an very extended and very very long running conversation.

Cindysphynx says - It is correct that Dumbledore trusts Snape, but I don't think it is the same sort of trust that Dumbledore has in Hagrid.

Trust only comes in one form "complete" or not at all.  There is a degree of affection going back many years with Hagrid.  This is, in Snape's case, replaced with Dumbledore's respect at Snape's skills as Potions Professor and, possibly, as yet unkown "deeds" (also under discussion at length on this list....) and which will probably play some part in the next book; bearing in mind the nature of his departure at the end of GoF.

Felicia Rickman


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





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  6 19:46:35 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:46:35 -0000
Subject: Malfoy on the train... A 'stomp' or a bully getting what he deserved!
Message-ID: <a3s16r+gr5g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34771

I've seen about 5 posts referring to the 'Train Stomp' at the end of 
GofF. For those newbies, on the Hogwart's Express home Harry, Ron, 
and Hermione were minding their own business when Malfoy, Crabbe and 
Goyle came in and Malfoy started threatening them.

"You've picked the losing side, Potter! I warned you!..." He jerked 
his head at Ron and Hermione. "Too late now, Potter! They'll be the 
first to go, now the Dark Lord's back! Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers 
first! Well--second--Diggory was the f--"

I agree with JKLB who wrote:"This isn't an empty schoolboy threat. 
The fathers of all 3 Slytherins in that doorway are DE's and will 
undoubtedly soon be killing "Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers."

Lucius Malfoy was one of the masked gang levitating muggles at the 
World Cup, showing the muggle mothers panties to the crowd below and 
doing who knows what offscreen (I'm glad JKR writes for a PG audiaece)
At that time, Draco taunted the trio alone saying Hermione might be 
next "have her knickers shown".

Malfoy's taunts got worse through the book until in my opinion he got 
what he deserves on the train home.

Personally, I've worked several years with 'at-risk children' and 
have dealt with several anti-social types who seem to live for 
insults. Many actually enjoy cussing out those in authority knowing 
that professionals will not attack them back {there are laws against 
that.) Oe kid in particular came in from a game in the park bruised 
and covered in gaebage. After going by the book, it was discovered 
that he had trash-talked to someone much bigger than him and even 
traded ethnic slurs thinking he could get away with it.

I see a parallel to Malfoy thinjing the HRH trio would continue to 
just 'ignore it' as Hermione kept urging. He seemed to forget that 
Harry had just faced Voldemort so was probably not scared of little 
Draco.

Fred and George's part? In my opinion they were watching the back of 
their brother and his two friends against a trio that they knew to be 
the sons of Death Eaters. 

To make it more personal, Lucius Malfoy had almost killed their 
little sister in CofS with the Tom Riddle Diary and his son is 
threatening that "They'll be the 
first to go, now the Dark Lord's back! Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers..."

Sounds like much more than an idle shoolboy threat. And how did Harry 
respond? Did he 'Stupify' or any of the battle curses he knew? He 
zapped with Furnunculus while others used 'jellylegs' and similar 
curses. 

Cindy wrote about Fred,Geotge, and HRH 
> Bad guys kick their foe when they are down and helpless and 
> unconscious.  Good guys do what they have to do and move on.  They 
> do NOT curse people just for saying something they don't like, 
> stomp them, and then leave them there powerless to rescue 
> themselves.  

Excuse me, Did anyone 'kick' anyone?  As far as the 'stomp', Fred 
was "stepping onto Malfoy" as he entered the compartment and George 
was "careful to tread on Malfoy as he followed Fred inside. They then 
pushed the trio into the hall.
As I remember, those train compartments are pretty small. It would be 
difficult NOT to step on 3 people 2 of which were the size of Crabbe 
and Goyle. Noone kicked them while they were down, although I 
wouldn't have minded if F&G tried to make up by leaving the trio some 
of there ton tongue toffees or canary creams.

As far as Fred and George being 17 and by the standards of their 
culture, legal adults, I wouldn't have been surprised if they had 
been told by Molly to keep an eye on HRH. Can you imagine being a 
protective mother of that crew? Your husbands at odds with DE's, one 
son's working with dragons, and your 2 babies are being attacked by 
Voldemort!

In my opinion, Malfoy, Crabbe, & Goyle are spoiled children used to 
threatening others with impunity. They have never been in a real 
battle and all will have to choose whether to follow their fathers 
and become DE's or to stand on their own. I'd like to see Malfoy 
redeem himself (a favorite theme among group members) but I don't see 
any of them having the integrity or moral fiber to make a hard 
choice. Still i hope someone might surprise me.

uncmark






From ursamajr at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  6 19:48:42 2002
From: ursamajr at yahoo.com (Ursamajr)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:48:42 -0000
Subject: Snape as a Death Eater/ Magical Fireplaces
Message-ID: <a3s1aq+ebmk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34772

Hi I am new at posting but have been lurking for a while. Some 
thoughts I had were:

In GoF while talking in the Graveyard about missing members Voldie 
tells the DEs "One, who I believe has left me forever...he will be 
killed of course...and one, who remains my most faithful servant, and 
has already entered my service." So the one who has left forever 
maybe this isnt Snape. The obvious choice for the one that is his 
most faithful servant would be Crouch but what if it were Snape? And 
if Snape really is still a DE. I know, well then why hasn't he killed 
Harry already then? I don't know. Just a thought. 

About the room with secret magical powers, maybe it's the kitchen. 
The fire place could be hooked up to the Hogwarts floo network. The 
house elves might use this system to travel around Hogwarts and the 
house common rooms to clean and such without being seen. Maybe Dobby 
can help Harry access secret and off-limit rooms this way. 

Be easy on me please.
-Adrienne (Both a Sirius and Severus fan, even if he is evil)






From ritadarling at ivillage.com  Wed Feb  6 20:07:06 2002
From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (Rita F)
Date: 6 Feb 2002 12:07:06 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 2
Message-ID: <20020206200706.21997.cpmta@c006.snv.cp.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34773

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020206/fcaffbb6/attachment.ksh>

From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Wed Feb  6 20:10:07 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 20:10:07 -0000
Subject: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 2-and-a-half
In-Reply-To: <a3rr0s+10vj0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3s2iv+vji9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34774

Marina said, in regards to Cindy's theory that Snape left the DEs 
because they mistreated him: 

>> If Snape defected from the DE cause they treated him badly, and cut
>> a deal with Dumbledore to save his neck and get revenge -- well, he
>> accomplished both those things fifteen years ago.  Why stick his 
>> precious neck out again...

Cindy said:
> Oddly, this is a problem under all of the theories....
> It's also a problem under the Snape loves Lily theory, because Snape 
> continues to risk his neck after GoF when Lily is dead, dead, dead.

Well, Harry still loves James and Lily, even though they are dead, 
dead, dead.  Why can't Snape still love Lily?  Accounting for Snape's 
continued loyalty to Dumbledore is *only* a problem if you think Snape 
is a scumbucket without a decent bone in his body.  If Snape truly 
loved Lily, and Voldy's threats to Lily's family made him finally see 
how evil Voldy was, her death wouldn't change anything.  In fact, it 
would make him even more convinced of Voldy's evilness, and therefore 
more loyal to the anti-Voldy side.  


Cindy then tried a new theory of how Snape could be loyal to 
Dumbledore, while remaining a scumbucket:
>... Maybe Dumbledore had Snape on the 
> ropes in the war and was in a position to blast Snape to little 
> slimy pieces.  Dumbledore (inexplicably?) decides to spare Snape's
> life .... So that makes Snape's motivation to continue spying after 
> GoF his plain, boring, uninspiring loyalty to Dumbledore, much the
> same way that Snape feels he owes a debt to James for saving Snape's 
> life.  

Yeah, except Snape *hates* James for saving his life.  Snape doesn't 
hate Dumbledore.  His lip doesn't curl every time Dumbledore is 
around, his face doesn't twitch, his hands don't involuntarily clench 
as if wishing to throttle Dunbledore.  Snape seems genuinely upset 
when Fake Moody implies that Dumbledore doesn't trust Snape.  That 
isn't how Snape acts towards an enemy who saved his life. 

No, face it, Snape just has to be a genuinely decent guy (deep down 
underneath) to stay loyal to Dumbledore.

(By the way, saying Snape would be blasted into *slimy* pieces was a 
nice touch; I liked that.) 

-- Judy




From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Wed Feb  6 20:13:10 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 20:13:10 -0000
Subject: Introducing George (Was Re: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 2)
In-Reply-To: <a3s114+4ba3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3s2om+7h4q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34775

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> OK, now that we have met George, I suppose we have to flirt with him, 
> seduce him, make him ours, and then . . . change him, right?  :-)
> 
> ***********
> 
> Marina wrote:
> 
> > Now I believe that Snape originally joined the DEs not because he 
> had
> > any conviction in their <ahem>ideals, but because they were the
> > enemies of his enemies, and he thought they might treat him decently
> > and not try to feed him to any werewolves.  (I believe this is
> > actually consistent with the Prince of Lies theory, Cindy, but 
> correct
> > me if I'm wrong).  
> 
> Yes, I think our theories converge on this point.  Maybe we can call 
> this part Prince George?  :-)  

I don't have a name for this theory, except perhaps Canon :) 
Snape was a Slytherin, and Slytherins are ambitious.  The primary
reason people join up with Voldemort-types is that they want a piece
of the power.  "Cleansing the race" is just one of the things you can
do to exercise power over a people, as Hitler demonstrated.  

I think that the only way you get a Dark Mark is to be in Voldemort's
inner circle.  And you don't get into that inner circle unless you toe
Voldie's line.  I'm pretty sure Snape embraced the dark side's
"ideals" when he joined up, and that his life up until then had a
trajectory that led him straight into Voldie's inner circle.  I think
folks are right when they say LOLLIPOPS is too weak to explain his
turning--besides, offing Lily was Voldemort's last act before being
defeated.  Snape had been a spy long before that (don't know how
long). Could a merciful act from Dumbledore have turned him?  Dunno. 
Could he have become slowly disillusioned?  Dunno that either.  When
Harry asks Dumbledore why Snape turned, he says "That's between
Professor Snape and me."  And that could mean anything.

Cindy says:

> I think the reason I have to dispute George's hypothesis that Snape 
> only joined the Death Eaters because of The Prank is that it presumes 
> Snape had nowhere else to go.  He didn't have to be on Dumbledore's 
> team, and he didn't have to be on Voldemort's team.  He could have 
> done something else, I would suppose.  I figure the Prank is what 
> swayed Snape to act, but that Snape did believe in the purity of 
> blood nonsense.  

LOLLIPOPS is strong enough to explain why Snape hates Harry's guts,
and The Prank is strong enough to explain why he hates Sirius's, but
neither is strong enough to explain why Snape joined the Death Eaters.
 I think it's simply because, as a Slytherin, he was following that
quality that made the hat sort him there in the first place.  It
wouldn't surprise me if for every grudge he has (such as against
Neville) there is some event similar to The Prank behind it.

--Dicentra, who favors a genuine ephiphany to explain the change, but
has no idea what it was






From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Feb  6 20:20:44 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 20:20:44 -0000
Subject: Introducing George (Was Re: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 2)
In-Reply-To: <a3s114+4ba3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3s36s+10lhd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34776

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> OK, now that we have met George, I suppose we have to flirt with
him, 
> seduce him, make him ours, and then . . . change him, right?  :-)

Well, you're welcome to go ahead and try... I suspect George is a
slut. <G>

> 
> ***********

> I think I go a little farther than you do, however.  I believe that 
> Snape really did believe in the "purity of blood ideal" plank of the 
> Voldemort's platform when he joined the Death Eaters, but that he 
> later learned that this was simply a smokescreen for the real
purpose 
> of Voldemort and the Death Eaters:  evil-doing for fun and profit.  
> That's the "Lies" part of the Prince of Lies theory. :-)

It's possible that Snape believed it then, but if so then he must've
dropped the belief somewhere along the way, since he shows no sign of
it now.  He never expresses any anti-Mudblood opinions, he's not any
nastier to Muggle-born students than he is to non-Slytherin
purebloods, and while finding just about every possible way to be
nasty to Hermione, he has never once brought up her Muggle heritage.
"Purity of blood" may have been another one of those things that
sounded really good at the Death Eaters Sunday Brunch, but proved a
lot less attractive in bloody practice.

> 
> I think the reason I have to dispute George's hypothesis that Snape 
> only joined the Death Eaters because of The Prank is that it
presumes 
> Snape had nowhere else to go.  He didn't have to be on Dumbledore's 
> team, and he didn't have to be on Voldemort's team.  He could have 
> done something else, I would suppose.  I figure the Prank is what 
> swayed Snape to act, but that Snape did believe in the purity of 
> blood nonsense.  
> 
> Can George address that issue?

George says:

Well, Snape is a Slytherin after all, and therefore ambitious. 
Voldemort and Dumbledore were duking it out for control of the
wizarding world.  Snape wanted to be in on the score, not to sit on
the sidelines.  Sure, joining either team brought certain risks if his
side lost -- but it also brought the chance of enjoying the spoils of
victory if his side won.  No risk, no reward -- and I've already made
my argument for Snape's bravery.
> 
> Marina again:
> 
> >I don't think
> > there was any one grand epiphany that made Snape realize, "Hey, 
> >these
> > guys are evil and must be opposed," I think it was a gradual
process
> > that eventually reached a point where he had to turn around and do
> > something, and it's at that point that he went to Dumbledore.
> 
> Aw, gee.  This appears to be where we differ.  Doesn't a drastic 
> reaction (Snape returning to Dumbledore and spying) require a very 
> serious catalyst?  How can it be that Snape just feels gradually
more 
> out of sorts until he glides over to Hogwarts and hitches his wagon 
> to Dumbledore?  Can't we work an ambush in here somewhere?  :-)  

George willing to make room for an ambush as long as it's not warm and
fuzzy.  Where would you like to put it?  Even if there was a dramatic
catalystic even somewhere, however, I still believe that Snape's
disenchantment with the DE's began before then.  He didn't just wake
up in the morning thinking that Voldemort is the bee's knees and then
-- pow! something happens and suddenly he decides Voldemort is evil
scum.


> Marina again:
> 
> > So that's George.  Under George, the GoF mission is not a problem:
> > Snape opposed the DEs fifteen years ago because he thought they
were
> > scum.  He opposes them now because he still thinks so.  
> 
> Yes, that's true.  George has the advantage of not having a post-GOF 
> mission problem.  He does, however, carry the baggage of requiring 
> Snape to be rather clueless of what he was getting into when he 
> joined Voldemort the first time.  That doesn't sound like Snape.

Oh, I don't think Snape was clueless.  I think Snape knew,
intellectually, exactly what the DEs were up to, and he thought it was
okay by him.  But when faced with the visceral reality of torture and
murder, rather than just reading about it in Daily Propher headlines,
he found that it wasn't as okay as he thought it was.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com
 






From Edblanning at aol.com  Wed Feb  6 20:25:17 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:25:17 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] More On Snape's Backstory
Message-ID: <55.2222e447.2992eb2d@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34777

In a message dated 05/02/02 16:53:59 GMT Standard Time, cindysphynx at home.com 
writes:
>Snape is a Hogwarts Slytherin, and he shows up knowing a lot of 
>advanced curses.  Snape isn't very popular with the student body at 
l>arge due to his greasy hair and tendency to glide and prowl.  But 
>Snape gets on well within Slytherin and with his head of house, 
>Karkaroff, who has, uh, taken an interest in young Severus.  Snape's 
>buddies are all Slytherins who eventually turn out to be DEs.  Snape, 
>however, isn't so sure he wants to go that route, and he is still 
>deciding what his future holds, despite Karkaroff's attempts to win 
>Snape over by providing, uh, wine.

<lots of snipping>

> This is just too much for Snape to take.  Dumbledore has shown who he 
> favors and where his loyalties lie -- the Gryffindors and the 
> Marauders.  This solidifies Snape's relationships with the DE 
> Slytherins and slams the door on any possibility that Snape will join 
> Dumbledore's team.  Figuratively speaking, Snape finally accepts 
> Karkaroff's wine.  :-)  Upon graduation, Snape really has nowhere 
> else to go other than join up with the DEs.  He certainly isn't going 
> to join up with Dumbledore, and he trusts the judgment of his fellow 
> Slytherins, like, uh, the Lestranges, Travers, Mulciber, Karkaroff, 
> Rookwood, Crouch Jr.  Snape figures joining the DEs will give him the 
> two things he would never get from Dumbledore:  power and respect.
> 

I really like elements of your backstory - chiefly because thay are very 
similar to mine - although  I haven't fleshed mine out as much. I also assume 
that the prank and more particularly it's aftermath, or should  I say *lack * 
of aftermath were the turning point for the young Severus. This rather 
implicates Dumbledore, doesn't it? It's not so much what the Marauders did 
that's the problem, as what Dumbledore *didn't* do. I fancy he felt ever so 
let down by the 'light' side, didn't find justice in the all-wise all-just 
Dumbledore. The man has almost a sainted reputation ( not canon perhaps, but 
isn't the general feeling that Dumbledore's the fount of all goodness), you 
go to him with the most terrible story and nothing really happens. What's the 
point of allying yourself with goodness if evil goes unpunished? Is there any 
difference between the two sides? Perhaps not. In fact this ties in with the 
way Vodemort recruited Quirrel: convincing him there was no such thing as 
good and evil only those with power and those afraid to use it or words to 
that effect.

In this way, Snape simply makes a mistake. A huge mistake of gargantuan 
proportions to be sure, but a mistake nonetheless. And he realises it . There 
*is* a difference between good and evil. Now whether there is a specific 
event that triggers his realisation is another matter. As I've said before I 
think that a 'conversion experience' rather weakens the plot and the 
character. What I like about Cindy's story getting him *into* the DEs is that 
it doesn't require any 'conversion', he maintains the same character and 
motivation throughout. Getting him out without a 'conversion' is a bit more 
difficult and I can only make it work by going along with Cindy's feeling 
that the young Severus wasn't sure that he wanted to buy in to the dark side 
from the start. I've suggested before that he may have been exploring which 
way he wanted to go and Dumbledore's understanding treatment of the Marauders 
tipped him the wrong way. On other words I don't think he was *bad* and 
converted to *good*, I think he was uncertain or confused and made the wrong 
decision. That way his coming back to Dumbledore's side is more 
understandable.

Of course, I also happen to believe he comes from a family of dark wizards, 
explaining all those curses he knew, and that though he's intellectually a 
*good* guy, many of his instincts lead him toward the dark side leading to a 
lot of tension.

Just in passing, I should go on record as saying there are things I don't go 
along with. I have no inclination to climb aboard the good ship Lollipop just 
yet ( waving respectfully to Caprain Tabouli as I sail by), but if she comes 
in to land, I'm prepared to eat my sailor's hat and beg a berth. Other 
things, such as ambushes etc we can only speculate on. (Says she, ignoring 
the fact that most of the above *is* speculation)

I've been wondering who recruited Pettigrew?
I have a feeling it can't have been Snape. But that would be a nice twist 
that would add some more self-loathing to the scenario.

Eloise


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




From Edblanning at aol.com  Wed Feb  6 20:27:14 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:27:14 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape (and a bit about Sirius/Hagrid
Message-ID: <17.22d27e18.2992eba2@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34778

In a message dated 05/02/02 21:07:01 GMT Standard Time, 
ritadarling at ivillage.com writes:

> Also, with Igor, he appeared to give no real secrets of which side of the 
> fence he sits.  All he did was tell him if he was afraid that he should 
> flee, and that he (Snape) would make his excuses.

An interesting little exchange, if one thinks about it . What are its 
implications?

First of all, Snape has no reason to do Karkaroff any favours after Karkaroff 
at his hearing attempted to betray him in order to save his own neck. Yet he 
does. Why? 
Is this a glimmer of humanity?. It could certainly on one level be construed 
as a 'good' action on a personal level, a rare thing for Snape, as is the 
fact that he seems to have forgiven Karkaroff's action (presuming he knows 
about it).
Does it also put into context the infamous prank? If he can let bygones be 
bygones with Karkaroff, then why not with Sirius?
I think we have a perception problem here. As I said the other day, I think 
we've got this whole prank thing way out of proportion. Not in the sense of 
it 'only' being a bit of schoolboy high spirits that got out of hand - I for 
one think it was a bit more serious than that -  but because I don't think 
it's Snape's main *adult* motivation in his behaviour towards Sirius. I think 
that for him it is more important as an indicator of how the man *can* behave 
- proof in Snape's eyes, if any were needed that Sirius  was quite capable of 
being the one who betrayed Lily and James and killed Pettigrew and all those 
muggles. The only time that I can recall Snape *himself* bringing up the 
subject is in this manner: to remind Dumbledore of Sirius' potential 
violence. It is others who assume that it is this is his *prime* motivation 
for hating Sirius, just as so many people assume that Snape wants the DADA 
job, when in fact the only canon evidence is student hearsay.
(Incidentally, for me *this* is where Snape scores over Sirius. He has good 
reason for both distrusting and hating him, based not just on childhood 
enmity, but on what he believes he has done as an adult - and as Dumbledore  
says, his actions are hardly those of an innocent man. Sirius on the other 
hand has simply not got over a childhood hatred and cannot admit that their 
bad relationship has anything to do with him.)

Secondly, he is doing something that he seems to feel is risky. Karkaroff is 
afraid, but *he* is going to see things through . Karkaroff is faced with the 
choice between fleeing and returning to Voldemort. Snape is choosing a third 
way: loyalty to Dumbledore. (I however am staying at Hogwarts : and I *don't* 
just think as some have suggested its because he's safe there - he 
unquestioningly goes to do whatever it is when Dumbledore sends him).

I think that this exchange is perhaps where we glimpse the best of Snape.

Marina:

> Hmmm.  It is correct that Dumbledore trusts Snape, but I don't 
think 
> it is the same sort of trust that Dumbledore has in Hagrid.  
> Dumbledore trusts Hagrid with his life, and Hagrid has a blind 
> loyalty to Dumbledore.  I think Snape is held in lower regard; 

I find it highly worrying that Dumbledore would trust Hagrid with his life. 
In fact I have a dreadful feeling every time I see/ hear that passage at the 
beggining of PS/SS that this is a prediction of his end. Look at all the 
mistakes he's made in his good-natured, loyal way. Yes, Snape has done things 
against Dumbledore's orders, but one could argue that in the Lupin case he 
was almost being too vigilant. He is utterly and completely *convinced* that 
Dumbledore is wrong about Lupin and although his action is petty and spiteful 
and laced with all sorts of nasty revengeful motives, at the same time I 
think he thinks he is just doing what Dumbledore himself should have done a 
long time ago if his vision wasn't blurred by all that fuzzy forgiving 
niceness. I don't think Dumbledore questions his loyalty for one minute. And 
I know which of the two I'd trust with *my* life. Loyalty IMHO isn't improved 
by blindness.

Eloise


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




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  6 20:33:06 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 20:33:06 -0000
Subject: Why the Veritaserum theory is all wet
In-Reply-To: <a3s1s7+1125u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3s3u2+7k1n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34779

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" <bonnie at n...> 
wrote:

There are more ways to get people talk than using Veritaserum. Snape 
may have followed Lupin, but didn't get past the Whomping Willow. He 
knew about the corridor... - just not about the Willow!




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Feb  6 20:36:51 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 20:36:51 -0000
Subject: Sirius vs. Snape: Azcaban recovery.
In-Reply-To: <a3s23j+560a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3s454+7g6d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34780

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

> Once he was out, what is he to do?
> Option #1: Go to Harry and see he's OK. "Hagrid said he's to live 
> with Lily's sister. Go there." (as he did, remember the dog)
> Option #2: Get Pettigrew from Weasleys (who at the moment were 
> somewhere in Egypt - much too far!).
> Option #3: Contact someone with the 'news' - but... Where is he to 
> get parchment, ink etc. not to mention an Owl? Nor is Sirius likely 
> to think that anyone would /believe/ the 'news' at all.
> Under the circumstances, #1 is the only realistic option!

Of course, there's Option #4. Send Dumbledore a letter, but I tend to 
agree that Sirius believes Dumbledore's after him too. (As indeed, 
I'm sure he was, though if he had received the letter, he would have 
looked into Ron's rat.) 

> He kept all dangers away from Harry (until 
> Harry got into the Knight-Bus) while Harry was dealing with his 
> emotions so busily he didn't notice anything.

Did Sirius keep any dangers away from Harry at that point? The text 
only indicates that he took a look at him, and what dangers were 
there for Harry at the moment?

> Sirius propably saw Harry watching that Firebolt, wanting it so 
hard, 
> but not buying it. Sirius gets a thought: "Poor Harry. I'll buy him 
> that Firebolt if it's the last thing I do..." 

I had thought he would have ordered the "Firebolt" after seeing 
Harry's Nimbus 2000 destroyed. Is there any indication in canon?

>He goes to Gringotts 
> (Goblins don't gossip about their customers)

True, but what of the other people in the bank? Here, I'd thought it 
much more likely that he did all the Gringotts/Firebolt business by 
mail. 

Possibly he also sends a letter to 
> Lupin: "Protect Prongs's son".
> No more. Lupin will know what it means and who sent it! 

This cannot be so. If Lupin received such a letter, he would have 
freaked out. As you say, he would know exactly who sent it. He would 
take it as the missive of a sarcastic psychopath. 

>Sirius sees 
> Harry and Lupin going onto same car and gets on the train...

Where? The train was crowded, and don't you think anyone would have 
noticed a big black dog on the train, or for that matter, on Platform 
9 3/4. And, the risk for Sirius, had Lupin seen him, was tremendous. 
No, I don't think he was anywhere nearby. Instead, I'll vote for him 
doing the obvious thing and apparating into the Hogsmeade area. 


>AIR it was Lupin who 
> broke Ron's leg, not Sirius. 

No, Sirius broke Ron's leg pulling him under the Whomping Willow. 

> And, um, no - Sirius isn't fully recovered yet. He offers Harry a 
> home - but realises only afterwards that he might still need time 
to 
> recover (you possibly don't want me to...).

I don't think that was Sirius's thought. After all, most children 
will not want to leave their families for someone they just met half 
an hour of go, and he quickly realizes it. Imagine his shock when 
Harry seems all gung-ho about leaving the Dursleys. 

> And, for other Person X ought to apologise to Person Y - well, the 
> thing about Ron vs. Harry after the Dragon - he didn't need to hear 
> it. Same goes with Ron & Harry. They know why - that's enough.

I agree. There was no compelling reason for Sirius to take time out 
to apologize to Ron. 

Eileen




From andrew_macian at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  6 20:39:58 2002
From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:39:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 2
In-Reply-To: <015e01c1af45$3c1ca900$2e8bbc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>
Message-ID: <20020206203958.39061.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34781

Greetings from Andrew!

It's all a matter of degree....

--- Marjorie Dawson <mdawson.design at dial.pipex.com>
wrote:
{snip}

> 
> Trust only comes in one form "complete" or not at
> all.

First, welcome aboard!

Second, I have found that trust for me is almost
identical to respect, in that it is a matter of
degree.  There are some folks in my profession who I
respect to the point of open admiration; others I
respect only because they, too, have gone over the
same jumps I have.  In the matter of trust, there are
quite a few people that I would trust with the keys to
my office, fewer that I would trust with the key to my
Morgan, and there are four still alive today that I
would trust behind my back with a loaded weapon.

So, for me, this is not a binary issue; like most
things in life, the spectrum's pretty much an analogue
one.

>  There is a degree of affection going back many
> years with Hagrid.  This is, in Snape's case,
> replaced with Dumbledore's respect at Snape's skills
> as Potions Professor and, possibly, as yet unkown
> "deeds" (also under discussion at length on this
> list....) and which will probably play some part in
> the next book; bearing in mind the nature of his
> departure at the end of GoF.


The above sounds, almost paradoxically, as if you see
the matter of respect and trust as I do...and this
also appears to be contradictory to your opening
statement.

Cheers,

Drieux

=====
ICQ # 76184391

'Each game of chess means there's one less
      Variation left to be played;
 Each day got through means one or two less
      Mistakes remain to be made.'
      --'Chess' by Sir Tim Rice

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com



From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Feb  6 20:44:54 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 20:44:54 -0000
Subject: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 2
In-Reply-To: <015e01c1af45$3c1ca900$2e8bbc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>
Message-ID: <a3s4k6+7kfj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34782

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Marjorie Dawson" <mdawson.design at d...> 
wrote:
>There is a degree of affection going back many years with Hagrid.  
This is, in Snape's case, replaced with Dumbledore's respect at 
>nape's skills as Potions Professor and, possibly, as yet 
>nknown "deeds" (also under discussion at length on this list....)

But there also seems to be a degree of affection between Dumbledore 
and Snape. I'm thinking of the, "You have to try the trifle scene", 
and other times, when Dumbledore speaks affectionally to Snape, and 
we do not get the reaction Snape gave Gilderoy Lockhart or such. We 
also know that Snape goes to Dumbledore when he's worried.....

Making me wonder. What if the Snape/Harry thing is based on "sibling 
rivalry." Harry usurping Snape's relationship to Dumbledore. (At 
least from Snape's perspective.) Or perhaps this is round II, with 
the same thing having happened with James Potter beforehand.

Though I'm still a good L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. crew member. 

Eileen




From ritadarling at ivillage.com  Wed Feb  6 20:29:34 2002
From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (Rita F)
Date: 6 Feb 2002 12:29:34 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's favoring the Slytherins
Message-ID: <20020206202934.23280.cpmta@c006.snv.cp.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34783

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020206/33ec0403/attachment.ksh>

From ck32976 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  6 20:33:42 2002
From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 20:33:42 -0000
Subject: Snapers vs. Sirists; Snape knew about the passageway, dementor in GoF
In-Reply-To: <a3ovag+dfpr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3s3v6+c331@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34784

I would like to start by saying that I prefer Sirius to Snape.  I 
don't hate Snape as much as before I read some of the very 
interesting things that the listmembers had to say about Snape.  
You've all made very good points about Snape's character, but I still 
prefer Sirius.

> Marina Wrote: 
> 
> > When he discovers that Lupin forgot to take his potion, he goes 
> after
> > him, even though he knows there's a good chance he might end up 
> having
> > to face down a werewolf. When he gets to the Shrieking shack, he
> > finds himself facing not only Sirius -- whom he believes to be a
> > particularly brutal killer, the monster who murdered thirteen
people
> > with one curse, the only man ever to escape from Azkaban -- but
also
> > Lupin, whom he believes to be in league with Sirius. Yet, 
> confronted
> > with two such vicious and evil (he thinks) enemies, Snape shows no
> > sign of fear or backing down; instead he faces them in order two
> > protect a bunch of kids he doesn't even like.

I have lent out my copy of PoA, so I can't reference it.  Snape went 
to Lupin's office to give him his potion, which I suppose could have 
been brave, but I don't think so.  Here's why...Snape knew (or should 
have known) that Lupin hadn't transformed.  As far as his going to 
the Shack, when he entered Lupin's office and found the map with 
Lupin's name on it, he appears to follow NOT with the intent of 
giving Lupin his potion, but with the intent of proving his theory 
about Lupin.  Snape (IMO) wanted to be able to prove, once and for 
all, that Lupin was helping Black and couldn't be trusted.  I don't 
personally see it as a brave thing, because (again IMHO) once he left 
for the shack, he was set on revenge and proving himself, which tends 
to push away fear in most people.  I could be wrong, but that is how 
I read it.  

On another note, All this talk about Snape has me thinking about a 
couple of things. 

First, I've seen mention of Snape not being able to ward off the 
dementors in GoF, but why was the dementor at Hogwarts to begin 
with?  I know the cannon answer is because Fudge wanted protection, 
but I have trouble with that.

(Aside: I know that the kiss was imperative for the plot, and I'm not 
faulting JKR at all.  I know that I couldn't have written it better, 
and more to the point, I wouldn't want to see anything changed.  I 
just enjoy contemplating these things. )

Anyway...We know from cannon that 
1)Dumbledore HATES the dementors and 
2)Fudge is usually not guarded by dementors or anyone for that matter.

Fudge had no reason to feel that he was in danger at the 3rd task, so 
that leaves out his bringing a dementor to begin with.  So did they 
call for a dementor?  If so, how long would it take for a dementor to 
get there? Can they apparate? (I know you can't apparate into 
Hogwarts, but why not just outside?) Are there dementors anywhere but 
Azkaban?  Maybe this has been discussed before, and I apologize if it 
has, I've just not seen it anywhere.  Can anyone shed some light on 
this for me?


Second, I see many complaints about Lupin not informing Dumbledore 
about the Passageway at the whomping Willow, but all this debate 
about Sirius and Snape has me thinking that Snape also knew about the 
route.  He also knew that Sirius knew and that it led right on to 
Hogwart's grounds.  So, what is Snape's excuse?  Granted, he may not 
have known about it's leading to the Shack, but I would think that 
he'd tell Dumbledore.  I just thought I'd bring that up (Sorry Snape 
fans).  Maybe I'm reading this wrong.  Does anyone else have any 
input?


Carrie





From ritadarling at ivillage.com  Wed Feb  6 20:46:24 2002
From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (Rita F)
Date: 6 Feb 2002 12:46:24 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape (and a bit about Sirius/Hagrid
Message-ID: <20020206204624.22656.cpmta@c006.snv.cp.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34785

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020206/05b710d5/attachment.ksh>

From muellem at bc.edu  Wed Feb  6 21:10:55 2002
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 21:10:55 -0000
Subject: Introducing George (Was Re: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 2)
In-Reply-To: <a3rtgp+fspn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3s64v+jj1r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34786

<snip>marinafrants" <rusalka at i... wrote:
  So that's George.  Under George, the GoF mission is not a problem:
  Snape opposed the DEs fifteen years ago because he thought they were
  scum.  He opposes them now because he still thinks so.  The fact 
  that he loathes most of the people on the good side is irrelevant. 
  Whatever he thinks of Harry Potter, he knows Harry is never going to
  go around torturing people to death just because they annoyed him, 
  and  that's enough to make him preferable to Voldemort in Snape's   
  book.
  
  Marina
<end snip>
 
 I've got to say, I like this theory much more than unrequited 
 love!   I think that angle has been played one too many times in so  
 many different areas -- look at Star Wars -- the love triangle was a 
 biggie(unrequited or not) until it was finally debunked!  I do hope 
 JKR will not use this very trite and commonly used excuse to go 
 over to the "good" guys side.  To me, at least, it would devalue 
 this  being there--"the girl I still carry a major torch for is 
 there" -- while this theory at least allows him to view first-hand 
 what the DE's are, not just what he was told.  He makes the decision 
 based on his values and is not influenced by anothers.  
 
 I am a first time poster -- joined this list about 2 weeks ago and 
 I just love it!  Thanks for all the great reading.
 
 Cole






From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  6 21:18:24 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 21:18:24 -0000
Subject: What does it mean to 'like' a character, 
In-Reply-To: <BECCC6DD-1AD4-11D6-826F-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a3s6j0+potd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34787

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Porphyria <porphyria at m...> wrote:
Good question - I like 'em all as characters (because they work as 
characters and they aid the story - including LV). 

As *persons* - in real life - I'd like Gryffindors - not Dursleys nor 
Slytherins (as far as we know them). Yet - I think I'd get tired of 
Ron's constant complaining over his poverty. And if I were rich 
enough, I'd response by giving him a Galleon. "There. Now you're not 
poor anymore" - sort)  Ron wouldn't like that, though...

With Hermione... I like reading myself, so we'd probably discuss 
books...




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Wed Feb  6 21:19:06 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 21:19:06 -0000
Subject: Snape knew about the passageway
In-Reply-To: <a3s3v6+c331@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3s6ka+s33v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34788

Carrie said:
> ...I see many complaints about Lupin not informing Dumbledore 
> about the Passageway at the whomping Willow, but all this debate 
> about Sirius and Snape has me thinking that Snape also knew about 
> the route.  He also knew that Sirius knew and that it led right on 
> to Hogwart's grounds.  So, what is Snape's excuse? 

Knowing about the Whomping Willow passageway is not the problem.  In 
fact, probably the whole Hogwarts staff knows about the passageway -- 
Pomfrey used to take Lupin there, and Dumbledore was the one who 
arranged to have it built.  And Dumbledore knows that Sirius knows 
about the passge, because of the whole infamous Prank thing back when 
Sirius and Snape were students; Dumbledore knows that Sirius sent 
Snape down that passageway.  There's no reason for Snape to tell 
Dumbledore any of this; Dumbledore knows it already. 

No, the problem is that only Lupin knows that Sirius is an animagus.  
This is the secret that Lupin has been keeping from Dumbledore.  
Sirius has been sneaking around the Hogwarts grounds in dog form, and 
only Lupin knows he can do that. 

By the way, there are also a bunch of other passageways that Lupin 
knows about (such as the one that goes from the one-eyed witch to 
Honeydukes.)  We don't know if Dumbledore is aware of these 
passageways; Snape clearly is not, as he examines the one-eyed witch 
and doesn't discover its secret. 




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Wed Feb  6 21:33:10 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:33:10 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snapers vs. Sirists; Snape knew about the passageway, dementor in GoF
References: <a3s3v6+c331@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000d01c1af55$e00528c0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 34789

Carrie Said:

>>Second, I see many complaints about Lupin not informing Dumbledore 
about the Passageway at the whomping Willow, but all this debate 
about Sirius and Snape has me thinking that Snape also knew about the 
route.  He also knew that Sirius knew and that it led right on to 
Hogwart's grounds.  So, what is Snape's excuse?  Granted, he may not 
have known about it's leading to the Shack, but I would think that 
he'd tell Dumbledore.  I just thought I'd bring that up (Sorry Snape 
fans).  Maybe I'm reading this wrong.  Does anyone else have any 
input?>>

    *smiles indulgently* silly billy.  Of course Dumbledore knew about the passageway already.  He's the one who had it built.  Here, a few snipets from PoA:

" [Lupin speaking] But then Dumbledore became Headmaster, and he was sympathetic.  He said that as long as we took certain precautions, there was no reason I shouldn't come to school..." [...] "The truth is [The Whomping Willow] was planted *because* I came to Hogwarts.  [The Shrieking Shack], the tunnel that leads to it - they were built for my use.  Once a month, I was smuggled out of the castle, into this place, to transform.  The tree was placed at the tunnel mouth to stop anyone coming across me while I was dangerous."

    So Dumbledore knew all about the tunnel.  ^_^ What Remus felt guilty about was not telling Dumbledore that Sirius was an unregistered animagus (Snape, remember, only knew that Lupin was a werewolf, not that the others were animagi).  He refrained from telling D for so long because he didn't want D to know he had betrayed D's trust by sneaking out of the shack - potentially putting others in danger - to romp with the other Marauders.  Hope that clears some things up. ^_^

laura 


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





From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com  Wed Feb  6 21:49:27 2002
From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 15:49:27 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius vs. Snape: Azcaban recovery.
References: <a3s23j+560a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C61A4E7.6BA5A794@kingwoodcable.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34790

finwitch wrote:

> Sirius had more than one prime motives to escape from Azcaban. Both
> to save Harry and to make Pettigrew pay among others - like proving
> his innocence... Everything he might have wanted, needed and/or
> desired required his getting out of Azcaban. His entire being was
> momentuously aimed at a single goal: Out of Azcaban. This is so great
> a need, so great an emotional thought: "I must get out of here" -
> that it brings that non-wand, non-controlled magic out. That's how he
> escaped. (Being animagus helped, no doubt)

I think Sirius always panned to get out, but he didn't make his move
until he saw Scabbers in the newspaper and realize that Harry was in
danger. Was there a mention of him using magic to get out? I know he was
animagus, and he was so skinny in dog form that he was able to squeeze
through the bars. Though...he must've apparated to get to the mainland.

> Sirius isn't getting better: He's focused on finding Harry and
> getting him to safety. He's too busy to handle the emotional after-
> effect of his torment. He kept all dangers away from Harry (until
> Harry got into the Knight-Bus) while Harry was dealing with his
> emotions so busily he didn't notice anything.
> Sirius heard where Harry was headed, I guess - so he went there,
> using some other method. Again, he's concerned of Harry, his own
> Azcaban-trauma is constantly put aside - until later.

I don't think there were actually any apparent dangers while Harry was
walking away from the Dursleys. Sirius states that he jut wanted a
glimpse of Harry before he headed off. 

> Sirius propably saw Harry watching that Firebolt, wanting it so hard,
> but not buying it. Sirius gets a thought: "Poor Harry. I'll buy him
> that Firebolt if it's the last thing I do..." He goes to Gringotts
> (Goblins don't gossip about their customers) and withdraws almost all
> his money, buys some Polyjuice Potion(Knockturn Alley?) and gets a
> hair of some random (drunk?) person. Then he goes to the broom-shop
> and buys that Firebolt, telling the shoppers to send it for Harry
> Potter on Christmas-time. Possibly he also sends a letter to
> Lupin: "Protect Prongs's son".
> No more. Lupin will know what it means and who sent it! Sirius sees
> Harry and Lupin going onto same car and gets on the train...

Hrmmm...I'm not sure Sirius bought the Firebolt because Harry fancied
it. Harry's Nimbus 2000 got smashed by the Whomping Willow and thus
Sirius bought him a replacement (why not the best for his godson?).
Crookshanks is actually the "person" who placed the order for the broom.
We don't know that he withdrew all of his money either...the book just
says that Gringott's took the money out of his vault. Perhaps he's just
filthy stinking rich and the cost of the Firebolt is just a drop in the
hat. Even if it took every cent, Sirius didn't make mention of how the
cost affected his bank account.

I don't think Sirius saw him getting on the train. I also don't think he
saw Lupin get on the train. He knew that Harry was headed to Hogwarts
and went on his way, and later found out that Lupin was a professor at
the school for the year.

He also never conversed with Lupin until the Shrieking Shack. They each
figured out on their own that Peter was still alive, but they didn't
reconcile or even speak with each other until the Shack.

> Halloween: Sirius knows that PP has his best oppurtunity with so
> little students around and desperately acts. AIR it was Lupin who
> broke Ron's leg, not Sirius. OK, now Sirius has Lupin to trust, along
> with the Trio. Sirius' acts on Fat Lady, etc. is partly unhandled
> post-traumatic stress from Azcaban, stress and desperation.

I do agree that Sirius was quite desparate....to get to Peter though. I
think his emotions were running very high, and pretty much anything
could tip him off the scale. And it is most certainly PTS.

Sirius is the one who broke Ron's leg, and Sirius attacked the fat Lady
before the Shrieking Shack incident. Lupin and Sirius thought the other
was the traitor and they didn't reconcile until the Shrieking Shack.

> His attempt against PP is revenge, protecting Harry and more. He
> doesn't think Harry would get upset for this (wasn't Harry about to
> kill him for the things PP did?). Yet, all it takes is Harry's
> request to stop them both. That single thing shows that Harry's well-
> being counts for more than revenge when it comes to Sirius.

I agree...

> And, um, no - Sirius isn't fully recovered yet. He offers Harry a
> home - but realises only afterwards that he might still need time to
> recover (you possibly don't want me to...).

There was never any mention that he "had to recover". He wanted to give
Harry a home, and take him home that following summer. I think Sirius
was more worried that Harry wouldn't want to stay with him because of
the events that happened previously that evening, or that maybe he was
happy where he was. I don't think Sirius knew how the Dursleys really
treated Harry. He'd only seen the house and then saw Harry right before
the night bus came. That was my impression at least. But there wasn't a
mention of his mental stability. He mentally seemed to have recovered
quite a bit after the confrontation with Peter.

> His time in "some place warm with lots of sunlight" helps Sirius to
> recover from his time in Azcaban - at least, now he's able to do so.
> He sends regular letters to Harry, Lupin and Dumbledore. (Giving Ron
> the Owl as an apology with his first letter to Harry...) - Where did
> he get that little owl?

I think Pigwidgeon came from a regular post. It was never mentioned
where he got him, but Sirius said he was eager to take the job. We also
don't know that he's sending letters to Lupin. 

We do know that he was feeling better and eating well, because he looked
well when he spoke with Harry in the fire before the first Task. So, at
least he was able to recover physically from his time in Azkaban.

> And, for other Person X ought to apologise to Person Y - well, the
> thing about Ron vs. Harry after the Dragon - he didn't need to hear
> it. Same goes with Ron & Harry. They know why - that's enough.

Eh? I think Sirius *wanted* to hear about Harry and what was happening. 

> Difference between Snape & Sirius is that Sirius does one repaireable
> thing against Fat Lady, has a fight with Harry and Ron - but only
> once. Plus they were able to do something...

He was certainly violent, and I'm not sure the Fat Lady has totally
recovered. It took a lot of coaxing to get her to return to her post,
IIRC. But the his fight with Ron and Harry seemed to have been repaired
the moment everyone found out the truth about Peter.

> Snape continuously and repeatedly offends Harry, Hermione and Neville
> (and who knows how many others). He's constantly abusing his status
> as teacher, particularly on Neville who can't defend himself and
> punishes those who do - just for anyone not Slytherin having a mind.
> Even when Hermione answers correctly to his questions, he takes
> points! Poor students can do nothing. Nothing. They can't go to
> Dumbledore and complain, because they don't know the password and
> Snape could be there stopping them. It's just plain wrong.

I think It's very likely that the kids could levy a complaint about
Snape, easily. They may not know the password, but I suspect there are
other ways to contact if need be. He's always around...watching and
waiting. I think that Dumbledore is a person who believes that one must
be subjected to all types of people. Though Snape is overly harsh. But
he's the antagonist. He serves a purpose in the story, and helps keep
Harry grounded. He's like the substitute for the Dursleys while Harry is
at Hogwarts. (we wouldn't want Harry's fame to go to his head, now do
we?)

> About Hagrid recovering so fast - 1) He had good conditions to
> recover. 2) He stayed for two weeks - considerably lesser time than
> 12 years. 3) Hagrid's half-giant (compare to Sirius' Animagi)...

I'm not sure Hagrid fully recovered...He shivers or something every time
Azkaban is mentioned...though I don't have my books in front of my so I
could be recalling this info incorrectly.

-Katze



From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  6 21:47:13 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 21:47:13 -0000
Subject: Sirius vs. Snape: Azcaban recovery.
In-Reply-To: <a3s454+7g6d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3s891+avs2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34791

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> wrote:
> 
> > Once he was out, what is he to do?
> > Option #1: Go to Harry and see he's OK. "Hagrid said he's to live 
> > with Lily's sister. Go there." (as he did, remember the dog)
> > Option #2: Get Pettigrew from Weasleys (who at the moment were 
> > somewhere in Egypt - much too far!).
> > Option #3: Contact someone with the 'news' - but... Where is he 
to 
> > get parchment, ink etc. not to mention an Owl? Nor is Sirius 
likely 
> > to think that anyone would /believe/ the 'news' at all.
> > Under the circumstances, #1 is the only realistic option!
> 
> Of course, there's Option #4. Send Dumbledore a letter, but I tend 
to 
> agree that Sirius believes Dumbledore's after him too. (As indeed, 
> I'm sure he was, though if he had received the letter, he would 
have 
> looked into Ron's rat.)

I thought I ruled it out in Option #3 - no parchment, no ink - 
nothing to write with or to send by. Nor are we told much about 
Sirius' letters to any but Harry later.

> > He kept all dangers away from Harry (until 
> > Harry got into the Knight-Bus) while Harry was dealing with his 
> > emotions so busily he didn't notice anything.
> 
> Did Sirius keep any dangers away from Harry at that point? The text 
> only indicates that he took a look at him, and what dangers were 
> there for Harry at the moment?

Fudge was extremely worried. What dangers... Drunk, nasty men, night-
time dangerous animals (magical or not). And well, not anything Harry 
noticed, (they never got close enough).

> > Sirius propably saw Harry watching that Firebolt, wanting it so 
> hard, 
> > but not buying it. Sirius gets a thought: "Poor Harry. I'll buy 
him 
> > that Firebolt if it's the last thing I do..." 
> 
> I had thought he would have ordered the "Firebolt" after seeing 
> Harry's Nimbus 2000 destroyed. Is there any indication in canon?

In book #3 when Harry was looking at the Firebolt - he wanted it so 
much it hurt, but declined from buying it because he didn't know how 
long his money would last... I don't recall if he noticed a dog, 
though. Just that it'd been a practical solution as to when he bought 
it. Sirius wanted to  keep an eye on Harry - plus, during Christmas 
he seemed to be at Hogwarts. He WAS there at Halloween - when did he 
get to go shopping/into bank?

> >He goes to Gringotts 
> > (Goblins don't gossip about their customers)
> 
> True, but what of the other people in the bank? Here, I'd thought 
it 
> much more likely that he did all the Gringotts/Firebolt business by 
> mail. 

Could be, but how did he get to send any mail? He could have been in 
his dog-form until there weren't any wizards or witches around, 
visited his vault and turned into a dog again.

> Possibly he also sends a letter to 
> > Lupin: "Protect Prongs's son".
> > No more. Lupin will know what it means and who sent it! 
> 
> This cannot be so. If Lupin received such a letter, he would have 
> freaked out. As you say, he would know exactly who sent it. He 
would 
> take it as the missive of a sarcastic psychopath. 

Yet, he might have given second thought on whether or not Sirius was 
guilty. And.. Lupin probably knew that Sirius was Harry's godfather.
Yet, Sirius may have sent a *coded* letter telling Lupin to protect 
Harry from Pettigrew. (using old childhood memories and such).

> >Sirius sees 
> > Harry and Lupin going onto same car and gets on the train...
> 
> Where? The train was crowded, and don't you think anyone would have 
> noticed a big black dog on the train, or for that matter, on 
Platform 
> 9 3/4. And, the risk for Sirius, had Lupin seen him, was 
tremendous. 
> No, I don't think he was anywhere nearby. Instead, I'll vote for 
him 
> doing the obvious thing and apparating into the Hogsmeade area. 

Why were Dementors on the train? Was Lupin sleeping because the 
previous night was full moon? Couldn't have been too sharp (otherwise 
he'd immediately recognised Pettigrew, although the rat probably 
seemed familiar to him...)

> >AIR it was Lupin who 
> > broke Ron's leg, not Sirius. 
> 
> No, Sirius broke Ron's leg pulling him under the Whomping Willow. 
> 
> > And, um, no - Sirius isn't fully recovered yet. He offers Harry a 
> > home - but realises only afterwards that he might still need time 
> to 
> > recover (you possibly don't want me to...).
> 
> I don't think that was Sirius's thought. After all, most children 
> will not want to leave their families for someone they just met 
half 
> an hour of go, and he quickly realizes it. Imagine his shock when 
> Harry seems all gung-ho about leaving the Dursleys. 

Must have given him some thought about what sort of people Dursleys 
were - though seeing Harry leave them in the first place...
 





From ck32976 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  6 22:02:53 2002
From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 22:02:53 -0000
Subject: Snapers vs. Sirists; Snape knew about the passageway, dementor in GoF
In-Reply-To: <000d01c1af55$e00528c0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a3s96d+ncet@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34792

Laura wrote:
> >     *smiles indulgently* silly billy.  Of course Dumbledore knew 
> about the passageway already.  He's the one who had it built.   

Thank you for clearing that up for me! I feel rather stupid for 
overlooking this.  Obviously Dumbledore knew.  I knew Lupin felt 
guilty about not mentioning that Sirius was animangus, but I guess I 
tried to read something else into it that wasn't there.  Sorry 
everybody!  (Also, I apologize for the brevity of this message, but I 
wanted to respond to this.)
 
 
Carrie (grinning sheepishly because of her very silly remark!)





From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Feb  6 22:10:25 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 22:10:25 -0000
Subject: What is brave? (WAS Re: Snapers vs. Sirists; Snape knew about the passageway)
In-Reply-To: <a3s3v6+c331@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3s9kh+4e4v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34793

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ck32976" <ck32976 at y...> wrote:

> Snape (IMO) wanted to be able to prove, once and for 
> all, that Lupin was helping Black and couldn't be trusted.  I don't 
> personally see it as a brave thing, because (again IMHO) once he 
left 
> for the shack, he was set on revenge and proving himself, which 
tends 
> to push away fear in most people.  I could be wrong, but that is how 
> I read it.  

Snape isn't brave because he possibly feels brave? Now, I know that 
you can be brave and not feel it, but since when did feeling it mean 
you weren't brave?

It seems that many people have a very different concept of bravery 
than I do. So far, Snape's brave actions have been explained away by

1. He might have been feeling brave.
2. That's his duty. 
3. That was the best thing to do, anyway.

But none of these really negate bravery.

Eileen




From ev_vy at SoftHome.net  Wed Feb  6 22:11:25 2002
From: ev_vy at SoftHome.net (Ev vy)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 23:11:25 +0100
Subject: Snape and the Map; Snape's talents
Message-ID: <01ad01c1af5b$3a1c4320$0508f1d5@OSLII>

No: HPFGUIDX 34794

I'm a bit late on all this, but trying to catch up with all those pro and
con Snape posts took me a lot of time. Just adding two points.

1. Snape and the Marauders Map
I think that there is a very simple explanation why Fred and George could
work the Map so easily. Lupin says that the Map was confiscated. Why? If it
looks as a spare bit of parchment when inactive, then there were no grounds
for confiscating it. It must've been in use, active when taken away from
the Marauders. And when Fred and George were in Filch's office they
wouldn't go for a piece of empty parchment, so the Map might've been still
active. And the Map itself is very helpful to the user, it gives a clue to
Harry how to use a secret passage. So it might've simply helped F&G in
teaching them how to use it.

2. Snape's talent as a wizard
---Eileen wrote:

>>>>>>Manages to keep Harry on his broom in PS/SS against Quirrel's curse.
Now, one might ask, "How do we know this takes a lot of talent?
Perhaps Quirrel's curse was very weak." Yet, this cannot be the case.
Are we supposed to believe that no-one else in the stands, or the
referee, would have cared to do anything to help Harry if something
easy could be done? No, I think this is proof positive that Snape is<<<<

Quirrell's curses couldn't have been weak, as he had Voldie's help. On his
own Quirrell wouldn't dare to jinx Harry's broom. And Snape was probably
the only one who suspected anything around. Dumbledore wasn't present on
that match as far as I remember.

And Snape is not a Potions teacher or professor, he's the Potions Master,
he title itself implies his skill.

S.P.A.C.E.M.A.N. - I love this one

Ev vy
who loves Snape for no reason at all
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ICQ: 105418158
AIM: Evvy Riddle
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There's nothing level in our cursed natures
But direct villainy.
      William Shakespeare "Timon of Athens"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Feb  6 22:24:01 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 22:24:01 -0000
Subject: Snape and the Map; Snape's talents
In-Reply-To: <01ad01c1af5b$3a1c4320$0508f1d5@OSLII>
Message-ID: <a3sae1+eeik@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34795

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Ev vy" <ev_vy at S...> wrote:
> I'm a bit late on all this, but trying to catch up with all those 
pro and
> con Snape posts took me a lot of time. Just adding two points.
> 
> 1. Snape and the Marauders Map
> I think that there is a very simple explanation why Fred and George 
could
> work the Map so easily. Lupin says that the Map was confiscated. 
Why? If it
> looks as a spare bit of parchment when inactive, then there were no 
grounds
> for confiscating it. It must've been in use, active when taken away 
from
> the Marauders. And when Fred and George were in Filch's office they
> wouldn't go for a piece of empty parchment, so the Map might've been 
still
> active. And the Map itself is very helpful to the user, it gives a 
clue to
> Harry how to use a secret passage. So it might've simply helped F&G 
in
> teaching them how to use it.

If it was active, how come Filch wouldn't be using it? He doesn't seem 
to be one who would put away such an advantage, especially since 
Peeves is shown on the map. On the other hand, perhaps he had been 
using it before Gred and Forge took it, and the dastardly duo struck a 
great blow for the liberty of Hogwarts students in that moment. :-) I 
like that.

And he couldn't very well go to Dumbledore about it, since DD wouldn't 
approve of him using the map. He's probably biding his time, waiting 
to get back the map from the twins when he meets one of them without a 
wand in some dark corridor....

Eileen

PS Why did the twins give Harry the map so quickly, and never care for 
it again? They'd memorized the passages, but that's not what makes the 
map so special. 




From westmerd at health.qld.gov.au  Wed Feb  6 22:28:30 2002
From: westmerd at health.qld.gov.au (Debbie Westmerland)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 08:28:30 +1000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Filch and the Map (was: Snape and the Map)
Message-ID: <sc623abc.081@HEALTH-ES2.HEALTH.QLD.GOV.AU>

No: HPFGUIDX 34796

[Re: Eileen's thoughts on Filch and the Map]

In the book it actually says that Filch didn't know how to use it, remember Filch is a Squib as well he can't use magic.

I don't have the books in front of me but Fred and George say that the parchment was in a cabinet and they took it out, how they figured out how to use it I have no idea but that is what happened.

Debbie

[Edited by Mod as per Debbie's request --JW]




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  6 22:49:21 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 22:49:21 -0000
Subject: Sirius vs. Snape: Azcaban recovery.
In-Reply-To: <3C61A4E7.6BA5A794@kingwoodcable.com>
Message-ID: <a3sbth+gt33@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34797

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze <jdumas at k...> wrote:
> finwitch wrote:
> 
> > Sirius had more than one prime motives to escape from Azcaban. 
Both
> > to save Harry and to make Pettigrew pay among others - like 
proving
> > his innocence... Everything he might have wanted, needed and/or
> > desired required his getting out of Azcaban. His entire being was
> > momentuously aimed at a single goal: Out of Azcaban. This is so 
great
> > a need, so great an emotional thought: "I must get out of here" -
> > that it brings that non-wand, non-controlled magic out. That's 
how he
> > escaped. (Being animagus helped, no doubt)
> 
> I think Sirius always panned to get out, but he didn't make his move
> until he saw Scabbers in the newspaper and realize that Harry was in
> danger. Was there a mention of him using magic to get out? I know 
he was
> animagus, and he was so skinny in dog form that he was able to 
squeeze
> through the bars. Though...he must've apparated to get to the 
mainland.

He got out *somehow*. He's the only one who did. And - Big Black Dog -
 Some dogs are slim and can get trough the bars but a dog big enough 
to keep a wolf under control? Maybe - but my earlier point is that he 
*could* get out only because it became so extremely important.

> > Sirius isn't getting better: He's focused on finding Harry and
> > getting him to safety. He's too busy to handle the emotional 
after-
> > effect of his torment. He kept all dangers away from Harry (until
> > Harry got into the Knight-Bus) while Harry was dealing with his
> > emotions so busily he didn't notice anything.
> > Sirius heard where Harry was headed, I guess - so he went there,
> > using some other method. Again, he's concerned of Harry, his own
> > Azcaban-trauma is constantly put aside - until later.
> 
> I don't think there were actually any apparent dangers while Harry 
was
> walking away from the Dursleys. Sirius states that he jut wanted a
> glimpse of Harry before he headed off.

None was mentioned, but 13-year old boy alone in the night? Not a 
magical danger - but one that would escape an ordinary, big dog. 
(Like a drunk man with a knife...)

 
> Hrmmm...I'm not sure Sirius bought the Firebolt because Harry 
fancied
> it. Harry's Nimbus 2000 got smashed by the Whomping Willow and thus
> Sirius bought him a replacement (why not the best for his godson?).
> Crookshanks is actually the "person" who placed the order for the 
broom.
> We don't know that he withdrew all of his money either...the book 
just
> says that Gringott's took the money out of his vault. Perhaps he's 
just
> filthy stinking rich and the cost of the Firebolt is just a drop in 
the
> hat. Even if it took every cent, Sirius didn't make mention of how 
the
> cost affected his bank account.

Well - Sirius can't know if he ever gets an oppurtunity to buy it 
later. And he seems to be a bit impulsive sometimes.

> I don't think Sirius saw him getting on the train. I also don't 
think he
> saw Lupin get on the train. He knew that Harry was headed to 
Hogwarts
> and went on his way, and later found out that Lupin was a professor 
at
> the school for the year.

PP was on the train! Would he leave Harry with the rat?
 
> He also never conversed with Lupin until the Shrieking Shack. They 
each
> figured out on their own that Peter was still alive, but they didn't
> reconcile or even speak with each other until the Shack.

Could be - maybe he indeed wasn't able to send any letters?

> > Halloween: Sirius knows that PP has his best oppurtunity with so
> > little students around and desperately acts. AIR it was Lupin who
> > broke Ron's leg, not Sirius. OK, now Sirius has Lupin to trust, 
along
> > with the Trio. Sirius' acts on Fat Lady, etc. is partly unhandled
> > post-traumatic stress from Azcaban, stress and desperation.
> 
> I do agree that Sirius was quite desparate....to get to Peter 
though. I
> think his emotions were running very high, and pretty much anything
> could tip him off the scale. And it is most certainly PTS.
> 
> Sirius is the one who broke Ron's leg, and Sirius attacked the fat 
Lady
> before the Shrieking Shack incident. Lupin and Sirius thought the 
other
> was the traitor and they didn't reconcile until the Shrieking Shack.

The thought in Sirius' mind: PP could kill Harry asleep! Got to get 
him before he gets Harry (not to mention all other things getting 
Peter is to Sirius - like Freedom).

> > His time in "some place warm with lots of sunlight" helps Sirius 
to
> > recover from his time in Azcaban - at least, now he's able to do 
so.
> > He sends regular letters to Harry, Lupin and Dumbledore. (Giving 
Ron
> > the Owl as an apology with his first letter to Harry...) - Where 
did
> > he get that little owl?
> 
> I think Pigwidgeon came from a regular post. It was never mentioned
> where he got him, but Sirius said he was eager to take the job. We 
also
> don't know that he's sending letters to Lupin. 

No, we don't - but I find it likely. Why wouldn't he? Lupin is his 
friend, after all. And Sirius isn't going to lose any of his few 
friends over lack of communication.

> We do know that he was feeling better and eating well, because he 
looked
> well when he spoke with Harry in the fire before the first Task. 
So, at
> least he was able to recover physically from his time in Azkaban.
> 
> > And, for other Person X ought to apologise to Person Y - well, the
> > thing about Ron vs. Harry after the Dragon - he didn't need to 
hear
> > it. Same goes with Ron & Harry. They know why - that's enough.
> 
> Eh? I think Sirius *wanted* to hear about Harry and what was 
happening. 

Harry didn't need to hear Ron apologise - even as neither Ron nor 
Harry need to have Sirius apologising once all was cleared out...

> > Difference between Snape & Sirius is that Sirius does one 
repaireable
> > thing against Fat Lady, has a fight with Harry and Ron - but only
> > once. Plus they were able to do something...
> 
> He was certainly violent, and I'm not sure the Fat Lady has totally
> recovered. It took a lot of coaxing to get her to return to her 
post,
> IIRC. But the his fight with Ron and Harry seemed to have been 
repaired
> the moment everyone found out the truth about Peter.

It did indeed. Fat Lady didn't seem anyhow traumatised to me in GoF...
 
 
> I think It's very likely that the kids could levy a complaint about
> Snape, easily. They may not know the password, but I suspect there 
are
> other ways to contact if need be.

Send an Owl, perhaps? But not very good way, though. Personal contact 
can be told more... Sirius specifically told Harry "tell Dumbledore 
immediately if your scar hurts" which Harry is about to do, always by 
going into Dumbledore's office, stopping to list candies to the 
Gargoyle...

> He's always around...watching and
> waiting. I think that Dumbledore is a person who believes that one 
must
> be subjected to all types of people. Though Snape is overly harsh. 
But
> he's the antagonist.
> He serves a purpose in the story, and helps keep
> Harry grounded. He's like the substitute for the Dursleys while 
Harry is
> at Hogwarts. (we wouldn't want Harry's fame to go to his head, now 
do
> we?)

Like it'd happen to Harry anyway... Having a child constantly 
insulted and grounded isn't the best way to raise them... it may lead 
to the lack of confidence. Such as doubting what he sees 
(Crouch/Moody in Snape's office, Dumbledore's gleam of triumph, 
recognising the Big Black Dog following him) or thinking that his 
troubles/dreams aren't worth telling. And that might well mean his 
death. Harry gets these early warnings, but never tells anyone... I 
just wish someone would tell him: "If it doesn't make sense, you're 
in danger, not hallusinating" - contrary to what Dursleys&Snape are 
about to convince him of! Harry certainly doesn't need anymore self-
doubts he has. If he had told at least Sirius about Crouch...

> > About Hagrid recovering so fast - 1) He had good conditions to
> > recover. 2) He stayed for two weeks - considerably lesser time 
than
> > 12 years. 3) Hagrid's half-giant (compare to Sirius' Animagi)...
> 
> I'm not sure Hagrid fully recovered...He shivers or something every 
time
> Azkaban is mentioned...though I don't have my books in front of my 
so I
> could be recalling this info incorrectly.

Recovered, but with bad memories.





From cindysphynx at home.com  Wed Feb  6 22:52:52 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 22:52:52 -0000
Subject: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 2.75
In-Reply-To: <a3s2iv+vji9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3sc44+5mo0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34798

> Cindy said (about why Snape risks his neck after GoF):

> > Oddly, this is a problem under all of the theories....
> > It's also a problem under the Snape loves Lily theory, because 
Snape 
> > continues to risk his neck after GoF when Lily is dead, dead, 
dead.
> 

Judy responded:

> Well, Harry still loves James and Lily, even though they are dead, 
> dead, dead.  

Mmmm, it doesn't really seem like quite the same thing.  First, 
Harry's motivation for risk-taking has never been to avenge the death 
of his parents.  Ironically, Harry's motivation for risking his neck 
in his confrontations with Voldemort appears to be avoiding Harry's 
own premature demise.  In PS/SS (going from memory here), Harry goes 
after Voldemort because if he doesn't, Voldemort will kill Harry 
later.  In CoS, Harry is motivated to save Ginny.  In GoF, Harry is 
motivated to get out of that graveyard alive.  It's not Harry's 
fault, of course; Dumbledore hasn't explained any higher purpose to 
motivate Harry to wish to defeat Voldemort . . . yet.

The Snape-Loves-Lily theory, on the other hand, says that Snape 
performs all of these heroic tasks and puts himself in harm's way for 
the stale memory of a relationship with a woman Snape never had. If 
that's true, then that makes Snape, well, kinda pitiful, no? <g>

What we have here, in the final analysis, is what appears to be my 
hard-headed, firm, irrational ability to believe any theory in which 
the character is motivated by SHIPping to do something critically 
important.  It's not anyone's fault; I'm a hopeless non-SHIPper.  
<heavy sigh>  Maybe the Snape-Loves-Lily idea has potential that I 
just can't see.

Judy again (on the Mercy theory):

> Yeah, except Snape *hates* James for saving his life.  Snape 
doesn't 
> hate Dumbledore.  

Ah, but is that the real reason Snape hates James?  Ironically, it is 
more likely that Snape hates James . . . wait for it . . . because 
James got Lily!  (No, wait, that's SHIPping, so that won't work).  :-)

Actually, I think Snape has been straightforward about why he hates 
James:  (1)  Snape tells us he thinks James was in on The Prank but 
got cold feet; and (2) Snape is jealous, complaining about James' 
arrogance, strutting around with his friends and admirers.

Snape hates James for these reasons.  His perceived debt of gratitude 
isn't it, IMHO.  (And it doesn't really make sense that someone would 
hate someone for saving his life).  So there's no inconsistency 
between how Snape treats Dumbledore and how he treats James' memory, 
IMHO.

That said, I do have to question why Snape doesn't hate Dumbledore 
for Dumbledore's non-response to The Prank.  Why be so mad at Sirius 
when Dumbledore behaved equally badly (from Snape's POV) by sweeping 
the whole thing under the rug?  Thoughts?

Judy again:

> No, face it, Snape just has to be a genuinely decent guy (deep down 
> underneath) to stay loyal to Dumbledore.

Oh, no.  I haven't reached "Snape is a genuinely decent guy" yet.  
In fact, I can't even see "Snape is a genuinely decent guy" from my 
low-slung perch on the deck of the Good Ship L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S., 
sipping a marguerita and occasionally heckling Captain Tabouli 
with, "Are we there yet?"  And yes, I have a seat on the Ship because 
I believe L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. neatly explains why Snape hates 
Harry. ::waves boarding pass to prove it::

Judy again:

> (By the way, saying Snape would be blasted into *slimy* pieces was 
a 
> nice touch; I liked that.) 
> 

Why, thanks!  If you want me to insult Snape, I've got a million of 
them, although JKR wrote that one.  :-)

Cindy




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Feb  6 22:59:12 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 22:59:12 -0000
Subject: Snape and the Map; Snape's talents
In-Reply-To: <a3sae1+eeik@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3scg0+et4s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34799

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> 
> PS Why did the twins give Harry the map so quickly, and never care 
for 
> it again? They'd memorized the passages, but that's not what makes 
the 
> map so special.

Because they made a map for themselves just to see if they could. 
(And they told Harry about 'collapsed corridors'- Marauder's Map 
wasn't updated to cover that - unless the twins were lying/mistaken) -
 So they may have an updated Map they made themselves... Could the 
twins have figured out about Moony, Prongs, Padfoot and Wormtail? As 
to who they were, and about Ron's rat? (No one would listen to them, 
of course...)




From midwife34 at aol.com  Wed Feb  6 23:25:33 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 23:25:33 -0000
Subject: snape and sirius as a possible future traitor
Message-ID: <a3se1d+qv3l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34800

  OK, let me just be blunt. I've only been half-way following the 
snape/sirius discussion, so forgive me if I post something redundant 
here. To give both characters credit, they are both in a mind set 
of "war" so that could explain some of their "out of character" 
behavior. 
   We don't know the full story on Snape's background, but obviously 
there is a convoluted set of circumstances that have led him to being 
in Dumbledore's trust. I don't think it is just his expert ability as 
a teacher, which I will give him that much credit, that got him his 
appointment as a "master of potions" at such a young age , by 
wizarding standards. Whether he is your favorite character or not, 
nothing can justify the way he treats the students. I find anyone in 
a position of authority who so obviously abuses the position as a 
bully, and for that he gets my "thumbs down".Snape has his petty 
side, and ignores what his Slytherin crew does and discrinatingly 
punishes the other kids in the houses (despite who's at fault, which 
with kids, is irrelevant, they all should be punished equally for 
minor indiscretions, or if they wave their wands in a fight at 
school), this is unjust. 
   Sirius doesn't exactly move me one way or the other. So far, I 
have to agree with whoever posted the observation that he was 
indirectly responsible for the dementors being present at Hogwarts, 
which would definitely worry me had I been Sirius and exposed to them 
for 12 years. He did do something right though, he enlisted 
Crookshanks help and had Crookshanks been successful in eating 
Peter , the whole problem would have been solved. But then it would 
not have been as dramatic of a story as the confrontation at the 
Shrieking Shack :-)What I wonder though, is Sirius as innocent as he 
seems? I wonder if his version of the confrontation with Peter is  
really true? Although Peter did not refute his story in the Shrieking 
Shack, it has been mentioned that the death eaters did not 
necessarily know who all the others were. Voldy might have thought it 
would be handy to keep this information from Peter. I never saw where 
it mentioned whether Peter had a tatoo like the rest of the death 
eaters, so it's possible that Sirius does not have one. The reason I 
suspect him is because he is capable of violence, as evidenced by the 
stabbing of the Portrait lady's picture when she would not let him in 
Gryffindor,and the thoughtless prank that could have killed Snape. 
Also, I find it very suspicious that Sirius is unaffected by the 
dementors. I have never understood how Sirius found out so quickly 
where Lily and James's blown up house was, to be conveniently be 
there when Hagrid was. Was it possible he was there to finish Harry 
off afterall? He had a lot of time in Azkaban to think up a plausible 
story to win over Dumbledore.

Jo Ellen




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Wed Feb  6 23:27:24 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 23:27:24 -0000
Subject: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 3.14159
In-Reply-To: <a3sc44+5mo0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3se4s+jvv5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34801

Cindy said (about why Snape risks his neck after GoF):
> > > Oddly, this is a problem under all of the theories....
> > > It's also a problem under the Snape loves Lily theory, because 
> > > Snape continues to risk his neck after GoF when Lily is dead,
> > > dead, dead.

I responded:
> > Well, Harry still loves James and Lily, even though they are dead, 
> > dead, dead.  
 
And Cindy replied:
> Mmmm, it doesn't really seem like quite the same thing.  First, 
> Harry's motivation for risk-taking has never been to avenge the 
> death of his parents.  Ironically, Harry's motivation for risking 
> his neck in his confrontations with Voldemort appears to be 
> avoiding Harry's own premature demise....
> The Snape-Loves-Lily theory, on the other hand, says that Snape 
> performs all of these heroic tasks and puts himself in harm's way 
> for the stale memory of a relationship with a woman Snape never had. 
> If that's true, then that makes Snape, well, kinda pitiful, no? <g>


I prefer to think of it as a tragic and touching, not pitiful.

I'm not saying Harry has the same motives as Snape, just that 
emotional attachments don't necessarily end when the person you love 
dies. 

As for Snape carrying a grudge against Voldy for that long, hey, if 
there's one thing we know about Snape, it's that he's really good at 
carrying grudges!  

Anyway, my idea was that Snape finally realized how evil Voldy was, 
once Voldy went after the Potters.  Even if Snape "got over" his love 
for Lily, his worldview wouldn't change back. 


> I also said (on the Mercy theory):
> > Snape *hates* James for saving his life.  Snape 
> > doesn't hate Dumbledore.  
 
and Cindy replied:
> Actually, I think Snape has been straightforward about why he hates 
> James:  (1)  Snape tells us he thinks James was in on The Prank but 
> got cold feet; and (2) Snape is jealous, complaining about James' 
> arrogance, strutting around with his friends and admirers.
>....  (And it doesn't really make sense that someone would 
> hate someone for saving his life).

Well, in PS/SS, Dumbledore says that Snape could never forgive James 
for saving his life.  So, yeah, Snape has lots of reasons for hating 
James, but I don't think Snape would like Dumbledore if Dumbledore had 
saved Snape's life.  

-- Judy




From theennead at attbi.com  Wed Feb  6 23:32:26 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 23:32:26 -0000
Subject: Where's the Canon? (Part One) -- Canonical "suggestion" and plausibility  
In-Reply-To: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C91728075329@cnncex01.turner.com>
Message-ID: <a3seea+4fp6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34802

"BOOM. They knocked again. Dudley jerked awake.
'Where's the cannon?' he said stupidly."
-- PS, Ch 4

Hello, all.  Quite some time ago now, Rebecca began her last sally in
our discussion about Snape's attitudes towards his old Slytherin 
classmates with a preamble regarding the nature of canon.  Because 
issues of canonical purity have come to suffuse this exchange, and 
because I find them interesting in and of themselves, I'd like to 
take a bit of time here to examine the relationship between authorial 
fiat and reader desire: the space that lies between the two, the 
nature of the speculation that takes place within that space.

If theory gives you the screaming heebies, then you may want to give 
this one a miss, frankly.  I am no po-mo warrior, but I do 
occasionally indulge myself in a few ugly little habits, like using 
the word 'privilege' as a verb.  If that sort of thing upsets you, 
then please feel free to skip on ahead: I've extracted the parts of 
this discussion that did not, IMO, center on questions of canonical 
purity, and I'll be addressing those separately, in a different (and 
relatively theory-free) post later on.

This got long.  It got quite long.  I've therefore broken it up into
two parts.  Only part two has Snapestuff in it, sorry.  This part 
does have a bit of Draco, though, for those who like that sort of 
thing.

------

So.  In message (33930), Rebecca wrote:

> I'd like to make a brief preamble distinguishing between an
> interpretation based on canonical evidence and one based on ones 
> own experience, imagination, influence from other writers and real 
> world probability. Now if anyone tries to write a fanfic, which was 
> Elkins original example, they must draw on all these things. 

I would argue that _all_ readers both can and must draw on all of 
these things.  To do so is intrinsic to the very act of reading a 
text.  Fiction in particular relies upon the reader's ability to make 
sense of the story through extrapolation from real life, and through 
inferences drawn from that extrapolation.  Should the reader fail to 
do this, or should her inferences diverge too widely from what the 
author had anticipated (as might happen, for example, due to vast 
cultural differences between reader and author), then the story is 
likely to fall flat: it will not make sense to the reader, or it will 
fail to engage on any real emotional level.

(Yes.  This _is_ painfully basic.  But please bear with me: I really 
am trying to go somewhere with this.)

Non-canonical sources such as the reader's real life experience, 
imagination, and understanding of probability, politics, and literary 
or genre convention are not the enemies of Authorial Intent.  They 
are very important _vehicles_ of Authorial Intent.

But the Author does not get to steer those vehicles.

We do.  And We Are Legion.

This is relevant because, as the endless quality of some of the 
debates here demonstrate (just how many students _are_ there at 
Hogwarts, anyway?), canon itself is often ambiguous or self-
contradictory, open to many equally-plausible interpretations; on 
many issues, it is simply silent.  When this happens, then readers 
must turn to non-canonical considerations -- themselves often 
ambiguous or self-contradictory -- to decide which of competing 
potential canonical 'truths' they wish to privilege.  Because there 
are so many non-canonical factors open for consideration, however, 
and because many of these are intensely personal, no two readers are 
likely to construct 'canonical suggestion' in precisely the same 
way.  Some disagreement over what is in fact suggested or implied by 
the text is unavoidable.

It is, I believe, this very quality of fiction -- the fact that it 
not only invites, but actively _demands_ that the reader insert his 
own experiences into the text -- that makes the act of reading 
fiction so highly engaging, and so deeply immersive.  Fiction demands 
a great deal of active participation from the reader.  It is 
intensely personal.  The hazy indeterminate space which lies between 
What the Author Tells Us and That Which Canon Does Not Prohibit is 
the space in which the story lives and breathes.  It is the space in 
which not only fanfic, but also reader speculation -- such as gets 
discussed on this list -- and to some extent reader engagement itself 
resides.

Canonical "suggestion" lives within this space.

But so do reader imagination...and reader desire.


Rebecca wrote:

> But I'm trying to make a distinction between the way a reader 
> imagines things ought to be (and here everyone can and should make
> their own interpretations) and what is actually suggested by the
> text (which we can still disagree on, but there's a difference). 

Rebecca, while I understand (or believe that I do) the distinction 
that you're describing here, I also think that the situation is far 
more complicated than the above sentence might suggest.  There is in 
fact a vast grey area lying between What The Author Tells Us and What 
We Would Like To Imagine, and many gradations of canonical 'purity' 
within that space.  Canonical suggestion -- "what is actually 
suggested by the text" -- is itself, as you acknowledge, open to 
debate; it is so precisely because it is formulated through recourse 
to all of those non-canonical factors you mentioned earlier: 
extrapolation from experience, real world probability, literary 
convention, and so forth.  Unlike canonical _evidence_ (the actual 
words of the author), canonical _suggestion_ is a matter of nuance 
and assumption and inference: it is inherently 'impure.'

That said, however, I think that we would both agree that there _is_ 
such a thing as 'canonical purity,' and that some interpretations 
adhere to it far more strictly than others.  Even on subjects about 
which canon is silent, we generally do recognize certain theories as 
more 'plausible' -- by which we mean, 'more likely to be what the 
author intended' -- than others.  We recognize the existence of a 
thing called 'Spirit of Canon,' a spirit which can be either 
respected or violated.  Because the Spirit of the Canon is a thing of 
nuance and inference and tone, it may be difficult to define in 
precise terms, but we believe in it nonetheless.  It's a lot like 
pornography that way -- we may not know exactly what it is, but we 
recognize it when we see it.  ;-)

Within the vast grey realm of canonical possibility there lies a 
spectrum of what we might call 'canonical plausibility.'  Some 
speculations are so strongly implied by the text that they hardly 
require any defense at all ("Dumbledore Is NOT Evil!").  At the most 
plausible end of this spectrum we might place those notions so 
overwhelmingly suggested by the text that they may often be mistaken 
for absolute canonical truth -- until, that is, some crazed L.O.O.N 
steps in to clear up the misapprehension ("The Lestranges were two of 
younger Crouch's three co-defendents in the Pensieve scene of GoF").

Some theories, on the other hand, militate so strongly against what 
we perceive as the Spirit of Canon that while they _can_ be defended 
(and often _are,_ often by means of extensive citation), to do so 
requires both rugged determination and, one might argue, a healthy 
dose of perversity -- or at the very least, of eccentricity 
("Dumbledore Is In League With Voldemort!"  "Snape and Sirius Are 
Actually Blood-Relations!").  At the far end of the spectrum on this 
side lie 'subversive readings,' readings whose proponents know full 
well that they are not Authorial Intent, and never will be canon, but 
which because they are not yet explicitly _prohibited_ by the text 
are still "permissable" and may therefore be legitimately espoused.  
Subversive readings are those which deliberately and self-consciously 
violate the Spirit, if not the Letter, of Canon.

Readers might choose to privilege a subversive reading for any number 
of different reasons: political bias, aesthetic preference, 
philosophical protest, playful humor, or plain old-fashioned 
perversity.  In most cases, though, the decision to espouse a 
subversive reading reflects some degree of dissatisfaction with one 
or more aspects of a work which otherwise holds great appeal.  
Subversive readings are usually a symptom of a deep reader 
ambivalence about the text as a whole.

Of course, true subversion is a matter of intent.  For a reading to 
classify technically as a 'subversive reading,' its proponent must 
_believe_ himself to be in deliberate opposition to the Spirit of 
Canon.  It is therefore impossible to prove that someone else's 
speculation is truly subversive -- particularly as an important part 
of the "game" of defending a subversive reading is the assumption of 
a painfully earnest and sincere tone ("No, really, this MUST be 
what's really going on in these books -- just look at all the PROOF 
I've found!").  So, for example, while I strongly _suspect_ that Eric 
Oppen's "Frank Longbottom Was Judge Dredd On Acid!" speculation was 
intentionally subversive, I cannot know this for sure.  He may have 
been proposing what in his own mind he considered an "implausible" 
suggestion, rather than a deliberately subversive one.

I can, however, give with full confidence as an example of a 
subversive reading a post I wrote a week or two ago (but never sent 
out) with the subject line "Defending Avery," in which I embarked on 
a passionate defense of one of Rowling's most severely misunderstood 
and consistently maligned minor characters to date: Snape's old 
classmate, the unfortunate Mr. Avery.  In that message, I objected 
strenuously to Rebecca's characerization of this poor man as 
a "grovelling toady" and outlined all of the ways in which the 
canonical evidence actually strongly suggests that Avery Is Not All 
That Bad A Fellow, Really.

And I did a fair job of it too, I think.  (Hey, there's quite a case 
to be made for Avery, you know...)  But the point here is that of 
_course_ I don't really believe that JKR intended, or anticipated, or 
expected, or at all _wanted_ us to read the text that way.  Nor do I 
believe for a moment that Rowling's Avery, should he appear in later 
books, will bear any resemblance to the rather likeable figure I 
painted in that post.  It is perfectly clear to me that we're meant 
to read JKR's Avery as...well, as a grovelling toady, actually.

However, the canon _can_ be read to suggest otherwise.  There is 
plenty of evidence to support such a reading, and nothing in the text 
proper that strictly opposes it.  I was therefore not violating any 
of the accepted rules of engagement in my interpretation: I was, in 
short, not "cheating."  But I _was_ deliberately misreading the cues 
of canonical suggestion, and doing so with purely provocative intent. 
(I had at the time just been accused of extending unreasonable 
benefit of the doubt to criminals and other Very Bad Men; the post 
was my original response to that accusation, a rather aggressive "I'm 
going to commit the murder I was imprisoned for" tactic.  It occurred 
to me only after writing the thing that it was likely an unduly 
inflammatory response, which was the reason that in the end, I never 
sent it out.)  

"Defending Avery" was a truly subversive reading, a deliberate 
violation of the Spirit of Canon.  It is quite possible, however, 
that someone else could make the exact same case for Avery with _no_ 
subversive intent: they could merely have read the cues of canonical 
suggestion in a highly idiosyncratic manner and thus come to view 
what I consider virtually canonically impossible as the Author's Real 
Intent.  People read very differently, and sometimes they can come to 
very different conclusions regarding the true nature of the Spirit of 
Canon.

Leaving aside for the moment the question of deliberately subversive 
readings, though (I'll return to them later), I think that for the 
most part readers _are_ capable of differentiating between their own 
desires and the suggestions of the text.  Statements such as "I would 
certainly _like_ it if JKR redeemed Draco...but I don't really think 
that's ever going to happen," or "I don't _really_ think that Snape 
is supposed to be a vampire...but it sure is fun to speculate!" 
attest to this understanding, as do the occasional explicit 
rejections of canonical statement of fact. ("I don't care _what_ 
canon states, I always imagine McGonagall's animagus form as an 
orange marmalade, and I intend to continue to do so, no matter how 
many times the text tells me otherwise!")  Generally speaking, 
readers do know when they are choosing to ignore or override textual 
suggestion.

Sometimes, though, disagreements arise over where along the spectrum 
of plausibility certain speculations or conjectures truly lie.  This 
does not, IMO, happen simply because some readers are inept (although 
surely some are), or because some people have a tin ear when it comes 
to nuance and tone (although some undoubtedly do).  Rather, it seems 
to me that when such disagreements arise, it is usually because 
different readers have chosen to focus on different _aspects_ of 
canonical suggestion -- and because many of these aspects are in 
direct (and often strident!) contradiction.  

This situation is even further complicated in the case of the HP 
books because as the series progresses, the tone of the books has 
been growing steadily darker and the moral universe they present ever 
more complex and ambiguous.  As a result, the 'Spirit of Canon' may 
itself be seen to be in a state of flux: as the series progresses, 
some of the rules seem to be _changing._  After reading only the 
first two books, for example, Rebecca's statement that "JKR's 
Slytherin is the House of Bad Guys" would seem incontrovertable.  By 
the end of PoA it seems less so, and by the end of GoF, less so 
still.  This aspect of the series weakens our sense of surety about 
what truly is or is not permissable to imagine about future 
developments: what once seemed improbable may come to seem not only 
plausible, but even strongly indicated; the formerly subversive may 
come to be reinterpreted as merely highly unlikely.

(Or it may even become canonical fact!  Just after PoA came out, a 
friend and I entertained ourselves for a couple of days by racking up 
canonical "proofs" for the notion that Snape really _had_ once been 
one of Voldemort's supporters, see, but that he'd since...well, 
recanted, sort of.  Although we both loved this theory, neither of us 
believed for a moment that it was really Authorial Intent.  We knew 
full well that such a plot development would be grossly out-of-
character for Rowling's irritatingly morally simplistic universe 
<vbg>.  No, this was a purely subversive reading that we were 
defending partly to amuse ourselves, but mainly to annoy the _hell_ 
out of a mutual friend -- one who is often weirdly humorless 
about "heretical" interpretations of the books that she very much 
likes.)

(Needless to say, we were both thrilled with GoF.  But the point here 
is that when an interpretation that you had assumed to be utterly 
opposed to the Spirit of Canon is revealed to be Authorial Intent 
only one novel later, that can leave you with some lingering doubts
about your own ability to correctly interpret canonical suggestion.)  

In the absence of direct canonical evidence, readers must look 
outside of canon proper for ways to construct a kind of model 
representing the Canonical Spirit, and this process is unlikely to be 
undertaken in the same way by every reader.  We all believe in a 
Spirit of Canon, yes.  But our respective images of what that Spirit 
of Canon looks like are not necessarily at all the same.

As an example of this phenomenon, let's take the (rather contentious) 
statement: "By the end of Book Seven, Draco Malfoy will have found 
redemption, if only in death."

The general consensus about this statement seems to be that it is 
canonically implausible, yet still well within the range of 
possibility (i.e., it is not necessarily a subversive reading.)  
There is, however, no very _firm_ consensus on this particular 
issue.  Whenever it gets raised here, you can easily find people 
arguing strenuously for its allocation to all points along the 
spectrum of plausibility, including its most extreme ends.  "It is a 
virtual certainty that Draco will act in the service of Good before 
the end of the series: all indications point to that outcome; at this 
point it is practically a canonical inevitability" has its small 
group of adherents.  So, however, does "Malfoy will _never_ be 
redeemed in canon: the very notion is heretical and can only be 
defended as a deliberately subversive reading!"

The people who argue both of these extreme positions aren't coming to 
their vastly differing conclusions on the basis of nothing more than 
their own desires or personal neuroses (lingering resentment of 
schoolyard bullies, for example, or romantic preference for frail 
young blonds).  Such factors might certainly play some role, but for 
the most part I think that the adherents of both of these extreme 
positions _are_ looking at 'legitimate' sources of canonical 
suggestion.  The problem is that while they're looking at the same 
types of sources, they're coming up with completely different answers.

The most vehement opponents of Redeemable Draco, for example, may be 
looking for clues to Authorial Intent to literary convention ("Draco 
is Harry's literary mirror: just as Harry both has and will be 
tempted by Evil, yet choose to turn to Good, so Draco will be given 
the opportunity to turn to Good, yet choose an Evil path"), or to 
genre convention ("This is a boy's coming-of-age story set in a 
fantasy universe; in such stories, the hero must be given opportunity 
to triumph over an adversary of roughly equivalent age and 
experience; Draco is the character who fills that function in these 
books").  They may also be gaining their impressions from certain 
conventions and shorthands that JKR has already exhibited a fondness 
for in the books to date ("Slytherin Is the House of Evil," "Children 
Resemble Their Parents," "History Repeats Itself Through the 
Generations," "Blondes Are Bad News"), or drawing analogies with 
other literary works that bear some relation to the HP books ("Draco 
Malfoy is the cowardly bully of a boarding school tale.  He's the 
*Flashman,* for heaven's sake!  And just as that character never got 
one whit of authorial sympathy [until another writer came along to 
make him the star of his own deliberately subversive text], so only 
through a subversive reading could Draco be painted in a sympathetic 
light -- JKR herself will never do so.")

Assumptions about the author's personal philosophy, drawn either from 
observations of the work so far ("JKR has proven herself 
unsentimental about both the supposed innocence of youth and about 
the nature of evil; she will therefore not balk at sending even a 
character so young straight to the Dark Side"), or from statements 
the author has made in interview ("JKR herself has said that she 
wishes to depict Evil as truly _bad:_ in order to do this, she will 
_have_ to show the corruption of youth, and it would weaken her 
thematic point to provide such an antagonist with any last-minute 
redemption") may also play their part in their understanding of What 
Canon Actually Implies.

Finally, people who take this position may be drawing on their own 
understandings of real-life experience and real-world probability to 
reach their conclusions.  ("People's predilections usually _are_ 
visible by the age of 14," "It is rare for children to overcome 
beliefs instilled in them by their parents," "It just wouldn't be 
_realistic_ if all of Harry's peers turned out to be Good Down Deep 
Inside").

And as for those who maintain that canon overwhelmingly _suggests_ a 
redemption scenario for Draco?

Well, they're looking at exactly the same things.

They, too, are looking to literary convention ("Draco's literary 
double is Severus Snape: just as Snape managed to turn away from his 
evil path, so will Draco") and to genre convention ("This is the sort 
of story which must end with a decisive victory for the forces of 
Good; only if Evil is abandoned by some of its former adherents can 
this victory be in any way satisfying, and Draco is the obvious 
character to serve such a function").  They, too, are drawing 
conclusions based on certain habits or tendencies that the author has 
revealed in the books to date (The most likely suspect is never the 
real culprit; Characters often surprise you; The lines of conflict 
are never drawn quite where you expect them to be; As the series 
progresses, the books grow increasingly morally ambiguous, so by Book 
Seven Draco *cannot* remain the one-dimensional character he has been 
to date).  Also like their opponents, they are likely drawing 
comparisons with analogous characters in other fictional works 
("Draco Malfoy is an envious, proud, disdainful aristocrat.  He's 
*Elidyr,* for heaven's sake!  And just as Elidyr gives his life to 
atone for his wrongs, so will Draco make the same decision.")

Redeemable Draco's most devoted supporters are also likely to be 
making some assumptions about the author's personal philosophy, based 
either on knowledge of her life experiences ("JKR used to work as a 
schoolteacher, so she knows that children often grow out of their 
cruelty," "JKR used to work for Amnesty International, so she's been 
immersed in a tradition of redemption narratives"), or from the moral 
precepts that she has chosen to emphasize most strongly in her work 
to date ("Don't Prejudge Others," "It Is Never Too Late For 
Redemption," "It Is Our Choices, Not Our Heritage, That Define Who We 
Are").

Finally, also like their opponents, these people are likely drawing 
off of their understanding of real-life experience and real-world 
probability to reach their conclusions ("The people who parrot their 
parents' beliefs most vehemently in early adolescence are those most 
likely to rebel later in their teen years," "You can't really tell 
_anything_ about someone from the way they behave at the age of 
14," "Adolescents tend to express cruel and callous opinions that 
they don't necessarily really believe as a way of covering for their 
own fears and insecurities.")

Now, neither of these groups of people is exactly _ignoring_ canon.  
Nor are they going about interpreting canonical suggestion in an 
utterly wrong-headed fashion.  Every single one of the above 
statements represents, IMO, a perfectly legitimate step in the effort 
to construct a model of the 'Spirit of Canon' from which future plot 
developments may be predicted.  But these two groups of people have 
chosen to focus on completely different _aspects_ of canonical 
suggestion while resolutely ignoring other aspects: they have 
therefore reached diametrically opposed -- if equally extreme -- 
conclusions.

In other words, people don't always disagree because they fail to 
read the signs.  Sometimes they disagree because the signpost bears 
far too _many_ signs -- all of them pointing in different directions.

When we talk about certain readings being more strongly suggested 
than others, then, we can run into difficulties, because the aspects 
of canon that I choose to privilege might not be the same as the ones 
that you do.  "Harry is the Heir of Gryffyndor" is another good 
example of this phenomenon -- and a far simpler and less contentious 
one than Redeemable Draco.  To some, the speculation that Harry might 
be Godric Gryffyndor's heir seems highly plausible: genre convention 
supports it, as do certain canonical plot events and their 
implications.  Others, however, argue (with equal validity, IMO) that 
this theory is canonically IMplausible, or even downright anti-
canonical ("That would totally violate the spirit of the canon!") 
because the work to date has placed such a strong thematic emphasis 
on the primacy of choice over blood in the affairs of men.

In fact, both "Blood Will Tell" _and_ "Choice Over Blood" are 
strongly suggested by the text, despite the fact that these two 
statements are contradictory.  This is one of the major 'fault lines' 
of the books: one of the areas where the work strikes readers as 
thematically inconsistent, and which therefore causes a high degree 
of reader anxiety.

Which brings us back to the issue of reader subversion.  


-- Elkins






From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com  Wed Feb  6 23:47:36 2002
From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 17:47:36 -0600
Subject: Sirius ramblings about Harry and Peter (was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: 
 Sirius vs. Snape: Azcaban recovery.)
References: <a3sbth+gt33@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C61C098.B7E05730@kingwoodcable.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34803

finwitch wrote:

> He got out *somehow*. He's the only one who did. And - Big Black Dog -
>  Some dogs are slim and can get trough the bars but a dog big enough
> to keep a wolf under control? Maybe - but my earlier point is that he
> *could* get out only because it became so extremely important.
 
Sirius explains how escaped Azkaban in PoA. He was able to keep his
resolve because he knew he was innocent. 

> None was mentioned, but 13-year old boy alone in the night? Not a
> magical danger - but one that would escape an ordinary, big dog.
> (Like a drunk man with a knife...)

I'm sure it was definitely dangerous for Harry to be out there...but
Sirius states that he wanted to get a glimpse of him. I think that's
all..he just wanted to see his Godson.

> 
> > Hrmmm...I'm not sure Sirius bought the Firebolt because Harry
> fancied
> > it. Harry's Nimbus 2000 got smashed by the Whomping Willow and thus
> > Sirius bought him a replacement (why not the best for his godson?).
> > Crookshanks is actually the "person" who placed the order for the
> broom.
> > We don't know that he withdrew all of his money either...the book
> just
> > says that Gringott's took the money out of his vault. Perhaps he's
> just
> > filthy stinking rich and the cost of the Firebolt is just a drop in
> the
> > hat. Even if it took every cent, Sirius didn't make mention of how
> the
> > cost affected his bank account.
> 
> Well - Sirius can't know if he ever gets an oppurtunity to buy it
> later. And he seems to be a bit impulsive sometimes.

Crookshanks would know though. Crookshanks was Sirius' liaison, and I
suspect he filled Sirius in on most everything that was
happening...especially anything regarding Harry. I think Sirius is
impulsive, but Harry is not...at least he's not with his money. He
thought about it, but then thought otherwise.

> 
> > I don't think Sirius saw him getting on the train. I also don't
> think he
> > saw Lupin get on the train. He knew that Harry was headed to
> Hogwarts
> > and went on his way, and later found out that Lupin was a professor
> at
> > the school for the year.
> 
> PP was on the train! Would he leave Harry with the rat?

That was never really addressed. I think Sirius' main goal was to get to
Hogwarts. It is possible that he was on the train...explains the
Dementor. But the Dementors were everywhere. They knew he had said "He's
at Hogwarts" while in Azkaban, and perhaps they thought he'd try to get
on the train to the school. I also don't think Peter would've have shown
himself...*ever* had he not been outed by Lupin & Black. So I don't
think Harry was in danger on the train. Peter sure wouldn't expose
himself on a train *full* of people. 

> > He also never conversed with Lupin until the Shrieking Shack. They
> each
> > figured out on their own that Peter was still alive, but they didn't
> > reconcile or even speak with each other until the Shack.
> 
> Could be - maybe he indeed wasn't able to send any letters?

I think Sirius' main concern was getting to Peter. He didn't want
*anyone* to know that where he was. Especially since was suspected Lupin
for so long...I don't think he even fully trusted Lupin again until the
Shrieking Shack. I think Sirius wanted to keep his whereabout secret.
Had he contacted Lupin, Lupin may very well have said something to D. It
wasn't until the night of the Shrieking Shack that Lupin figured out
that Peter was still alive, by way of the map. So..I think it's
incredibly unlikely that Sirius and Lupin had any contact with each
other until the Shrieking Shack.

> The thought in Sirius' mind: PP could kill Harry asleep! Got to get
> him before he gets Harry (not to mention all other things getting
> Peter is to Sirius - like Freedom).

He did keep saying in Azkaban "He's at Hogwarts! He's at Hogwarts!" I
think he knew that Harry *could* be in danger, and it certainly meant
his freedom if he could capture Peter.
 
> No, we don't - but I find it likely. Why wouldn't he? Lupin is his
> friend, after all. And Sirius isn't going to lose any of his few
> friends over lack of communication.

Not now at least...but there must've been enough of a lack of
communication between the two for them to suspect each other when James
and Lily died. I think they are much closer now, and Sirius is supposed
to contact him now, as requested by D at the end of GoF.

> Harry didn't need to hear Ron apologise - even as neither Ron nor
> Harry need to have Sirius apologising once all was cleared out...

I must've misunderstood the first time round...


> It did indeed. Fat Lady didn't seem anyhow traumatised to me in GoF...

I bet if you mentioned Sirius Black, she'd have a few words to say...

> Send an Owl, perhaps? But not very good way, though. Personal contact
> can be told more... Sirius specifically told Harry "tell Dumbledore
> immediately if your scar hurts" which Harry is about to do, always by
> going into Dumbledore's office, stopping to list candies to the
> Gargoyle...

This is true..not all students will know the passwords. I would find it
hard to believe that the only way a student is allowed to see D is by
knowing the password. I think he's always watching the students, and can
be found if need be.

> Like it'd happen to Harry anyway... Having a child constantly
> insulted and grounded isn't the best way to raise them... it may lead
> to the lack of confidence. Such as doubting what he sees
> (Crouch/Moody in Snape's office, Dumbledore's gleam of triumph,
> recognising the Big Black Dog following him) or thinking that his
> troubles/dreams aren't worth telling. And that might well mean his
> death. Harry gets these early warnings, but never tells anyone... I
> just wish someone would tell him: "If it doesn't make sense, you're
> in danger, not hallusinating" - contrary to what Dursleys&Snape are
> about to convince him of! Harry certainly doesn't need anymore self-
> doubts he has. If he had told at least Sirius about Crouch...

He had seen Crouch's name on the map, but I don't think it alarmed him
enough to think something was wrong. I think that Harry's is finally
learning to trust some people. Towards the end of the GoF, he goes to D
on his own when his scar starts burning. He also talks with Sirius about
his problems with Ron...the only person he's talked with about that is
Hermione. He's growing...though he may never fully trust anyone.

-Katze



From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Wed Feb  6 23:59:12 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 17:59:12 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius, Squeamishness (WAS Sirius, House of James
 Potter)
Message-ID: <F14qvhjcUdPEBD5I5N9000221d8@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34804




"dicentra_spectabilis_alba" <bonnie at niche-associates.com> wrote:
>And it's curious how in the Shrieking Shack (and most of PoA, for that
>matter) he's in this murderous rage, but in all of GoF he's rational,
>calm, and parental.  (Come to think of it, he goes rational right
>after Harry prevents him and Remus from killing Peter, e.g., when he
>asks Harry to stay with him, he seems a totally different person

</delurk>

I think Harry telling him and Remus to spare Wormtail was a bit of a wake up 
call to everyone's favorite ex-convict. Perhaps it brought on a bit of a 
revelation to Sirius that Harry wasn't the fifteen-month-old toddler that he 
had last seen, but he was growing up to be a rational adult capable of 
decision-making. If Harry reminded him of James, perhaps this may be even 
more the reason for his sudden change of disposition. "You truly are your 
father's son," he said as he made his escape, to paraphrase.

Since I'm posting about Sirius, I will bring up two things that my brother 
and I came up with during my lurking period.

1-Sirius is not the first person to escape Azkaban. Barty Crouch, Jr. was. 
Yeah, the brain developes slower in Iowa. It must be all the corn ^_^

2-(Question)Even if Sirius had his name cleared, would they still be able to 
nail him with escaping and make him serve time for that?

Another note, I'm off moderated status. Woohoo, go me!

Liz

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Thu Feb  7 00:09:57 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 00:09:57 -0000
Subject: Send Me My Broom (filk)
Message-ID: <a3sgkl+41j2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34805

Send Me My Broom (from PoA, Chap 12)

(To the tune of Send in the Clowns, from Sondheim's A Little Night 
Music)

Dedicated to Eileen

THE SCENE: Gryffindor Common Area. HARRY laments the loss of his 
Firebolt, confiscated by McGONAGALL on the suspicion that it may have 
been sent by Sirius Black)

HARRY
Isn't it mine?  No longer there.
When will I next leave the ground,
Back toward mid-air?
Send me my broom

Wasn't it Herm who won't approve?
Teachers came snooping around
It was removed
>From Black, they assumed....
Send back my broom.

Just what I'd lost for Gryffindor
Magic'ly on Christmas is more than fully restored
Getting a package that gave me a much higher jolt
Such great design
A Firebolt

I cannot wait
I need it quick
But they must inspect it for hex
Hooch and Flitwick
They'll strip down my broom 
Quick, save my new broom
They'll bother my stick

(Enter McGONAGALL, bearing the Firebolt, which she returns to HARRY)

McGONAGALL
Isn't a threat ? this much is clear:
Gaining a broom like this shall
Give Slyth'rin fear
So here is your broom
You ought to re-zoom

(McGONAGALL & HARRY exchange smiles confident of Gryffindor victory)

BOTH
Just wait'll this year.......

   - CMC

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





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  7 00:15:26 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 00:15:26 -0000
Subject: snape and sirius as a possible future traitor
In-Reply-To: <a3se1d+qv3l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3sguu+blke@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34806

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" <midwife34 at a...> wrote:
"Wormtail" was definately a Death Eater. Harry's seen him with 
Voldemort several times (via his scar), and - in Book #4, Peter 
Pettigrew is a willing servant to Voldemort.

Also, in time when one knew not who to trust, why James Potter 
insisted on trusting Sirius (knowing that one of his friends is 
traitor) saying Sirius would rather die than betray him? Turst him 
for Best Man, and godfather to Harry... (I'm inclined to believe he 
would die for Harry if need be). I find Loyalty and Bravery to be 
Sirius' main character traits. How come Sirius became so trusted by 
James? Absolute trust. One thing to trust his *own* life, but wife's 
and son's as well?




From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Thu Feb  7 00:28:29 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 18:28:29 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Miscellaneous/ St Brutus/Riddle's orphanage
Message-ID: <F2872YN2TcMq7kNSRQD0000dd0e@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34807

Eloise wrote:

>That St Brutus thing bothers me. I mean, why would a family to whom
>respectability is all want to tell people that their nephew *whom they have
>brought up* is a criminal. A mental defective (to use Durleyesque
>terminology) perhaps, but a criminal? (Yes, I know it's a measure of how 
>much
>they hate magic)
>And a 'secure centre' that lets its inmates out for extended summer breaks?
>Its not as if Vernon made it up on the spur of the moment, its obviously 
>part
>of a long-term plan.

Yet another testimony that the Dursleys are not the most intelligent lot on 
the planet.

>And another thing....How does the orphanage account for Tom Riddle's 
>absences
>at Hogwarts?

I imagine that the head of the orphanage was given knowledge of Tom's 
whereabouts during the school year, and was given the low-down like 
muggle-born students are.

Liz (who is posting like mad, 233 e-mails to go)

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




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  7 00:49:46 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 00:49:46 -0000
Subject: Sirius ramblings about Harry and Peter (was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius vs. Snape: Azcaban recovery.)
In-Reply-To: <3C61C098.B7E05730@kingwoodcable.com>
Message-ID: <a3siva+ib13@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34808

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze <jdumas at k...> wrote:
> finwitch wrote:
> 
> > He got out *somehow*. He's the only one who did. And - Big Black 
Dog -
> >  Some dogs are slim and can get trough the bars but a dog big 
enough
> > to keep a wolf under control? Maybe - but my earlier point is 
that he
> > *could* get out only because it became so extremely important.
>  
> Sirius explains how escaped Azkaban in PoA. He was able to keep his
> resolve because he knew he was innocent. 

Explains how he remained sane - not how he got out.

> > None was mentioned, but 13-year old boy alone in the night? Not a
> > magical danger - but one that would escape an ordinary, big dog.
> > (Like a drunk man with a knife...)
> 
> I'm sure it was definitely dangerous for Harry to be out there...but
> Sirius states that he wanted to get a glimpse of him. I think that's
> all..he just wanted to see his Godson.
 
Of course he did - he didn't want to scare Harry - but well, I think 
he kept an eye on him - until he got to the knight bus - just in case.
 
> > 
> > Well - Sirius can't know if he ever gets an oppurtunity to buy it
> > later. And he seems to be a bit impulsive sometimes.
> 
> Crookshanks would know though. Crookshanks was Sirius' liaison, and 
I
> suspect he filled Sirius in on most everything that was
> happening...especially anything regarding Harry. I think Sirius is
> impulsive, but Harry is not...at least he's not with his money. He
> thought about it, but then thought otherwise.
 
Um - Sirius knows Harry wants it. Sirius is impulsive and might 
consider being unable to buy it later...
 
> > > I don't think Sirius saw him getting on the train. I also don't
> > think he
> > > saw Lupin get on the train. He knew that Harry was headed to
> > Hogwarts
> > > and went on his way, and later found out that Lupin was a 
professor
> > at
> > > the school for the year.
> > 
> > PP was on the train! Would he leave Harry with the rat?
> 
> That was never really addressed. I think Sirius' main goal was to 
get to
> Hogwarts. It is possible that he was on the train...explains the
> Dementor. But the Dementors were everywhere. They knew he had 
said "He's
> at Hogwarts" while in Azkaban, and perhaps they thought he'd try to 
get
> on the train to the school. I also don't think Peter would've have 
shown
> himself...*ever* had he not been outed by Lupin & Black. So I don't
> think Harry was in danger on the train. Peter sure wouldn't expose
> himself on a train *full* of people.

But in the *car* there were only three kids and one adult.
It didn't seem all that crowded to me.

> > > He also never conversed with Lupin until the Shrieking Shack. 
They
> > each
> > > figured out on their own that Peter was still alive, but they 
didn't
> > > reconcile or even speak with each other until the Shack.
> > 
> > Could be - maybe he indeed wasn't able to send any letters?
> 
> I think Sirius' main concern was getting to Peter. He didn't want
> *anyone* to know that where he was. Especially since was suspected 
Lupin
> for so long...I don't think he even fully trusted Lupin again until 
the
> Shrieking Shack. I think Sirius wanted to keep his whereabout 
secret.
> Had he contacted Lupin, Lupin may very well have said something to 
D. It
> wasn't until the night of the Shrieking Shack that Lupin figured out
> that Peter was still alive, by way of the map. So..I think it's
> incredibly unlikely that Sirius and Lupin had any contact with each
> other until the Shrieking Shack.

No trust... then.
 
> > The thought in Sirius' mind: PP could kill Harry asleep! Got to 
get
> > him before he gets Harry (not to mention all other things getting
> > Peter is to Sirius - like Freedom).
> 
> He did keep saying in Azkaban "He's at Hogwarts! He's at Hogwarts!" 
I
> think he knew that Harry *could* be in danger, and it certainly 
meant
> his freedom if he could capture Peter.

Did, indeed. But still, Harry's safety is what I find his main 
concern.
  
> > No, we don't - but I find it likely. Why wouldn't he? Lupin is his
> > friend, after all. And Sirius isn't going to lose any of his few
> > friends over lack of communication.
> 
> Not now at least...but there must've been enough of a lack of
> communication between the two for them to suspect each other when 
James
> and Lily died. I think they are much closer now, and Sirius is 
supposed
> to contact him now, as requested by D at the end of GoF.

Right - not now - not after PoA. Unless Lupin was with him, of course.
 
 
> > It did indeed. Fat Lady didn't seem anyhow traumatised to me in 
GoF...
> 
> I bet if you mentioned Sirius Black, she'd have a few words to 
say...

LOL - but, well...

> > Send an Owl, perhaps? But not very good way, though. Personal 
contact
> > can be told more... Sirius specifically told Harry "tell 
Dumbledore
> > immediately if your scar hurts" which Harry is about to do, 
always by
> > going into Dumbledore's office, stopping to list candies to the
> > Gargoyle...
> 
> This is true..not all students will know the passwords. I would 
find it
> hard to believe that the only way a student is allowed to see D is 
by
> knowing the password. I think he's always watching the students, 
and can
> be found if need be.

What I don't get is - why Dumbledore never told Harry the password? 
It is pretty obvious Harry has need to see him pretty often... Then 
again, Harry can figure it out - just list candies... In the 5th 
book, Harry really should *know* it.

 
> He had seen Crouch's name on the map, but I don't think it alarmed 
him
> enough to think something was wrong. I think that Harry's is finally
> learning to trust some people. Towards the end of the GoF, he goes 
to D
> on his own when his scar starts burning. He also talks with Sirius 
about
> his problems with Ron...the only person he's talked with about that 
is
> Hermione. He's growing...though he may never fully trust anyone.
 
Poor Harry... He's not able to trust *himself* fully, though he does 
trust Sirius, Dumbledore, Hermione and Ron - and some other Weasleys 
(Molly, Arthur and twins).




From cindysphynx at home.com  Thu Feb  7 01:10:34 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 01:10:34 -0000
Subject: Sirius As Future Traitor?  (WASsnape and sirius as a possible future traitor
In-Reply-To: <a3se1d+qv3l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3sk6a+ngge@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34809

Jo Ellen wrote:

>What I wonder though, is Sirius as innocent as he 
> seems? I wonder if his version of the confrontation with Peter is  
> really true? Although Peter did not refute his story in the 
Shrieking 
> Shack, it has been mentioned that the death eaters did not 
> necessarily know who all the others were. <snip> Also, I find it 
very suspicious that Sirius is unaffected by the 
> dementors. I have never understood how Sirius found out so quickly 
> where Lily and James's blown up house was, to be conveniently be 
> there when Hagrid was. Was it possible he was there to finish Harry 
> off afterall? He had a lot of time in Azkaban to think up a 
plausible 
> story to win over Dumbledore.

I have to give this idea lots of points for creativity and degree of 
difficulty. :-)   Is there any possible way that Sirius could be 
either guilty, a secret Death Eater/spy, or a future traitor?

I think we can rule out guilt in James and Lily's murders.  Why would 
Sirius have them change to Peter as Secretkeeper if he planned to 
betray them?  Seems a little too complicated, but I'm open to any 
theories anyone might have on this.  And if Sirius isn't trying to 
protect Harry in PoA, and if he's really a DE, then what on earth is 
he doing in PoA?

How about blowing up the street?  Well, we know Peter left his finger 
in the street, and we know he went into hiding.  This does get kind 
of interesting, though.  Say that Sirius is a DE, and Peter is a DE, 
but neither knows the other is a DE.  Sirius knows that Voldemort 
went to the Potters' house on Peter's information.  So he corners 
Peter in the street not to avenge the Potters, but because he holds 
Peter responsible for Voldemort's downfall.

Could Sirius be a secret Death Eater and spy who was in on the whole 
plot to restore Voldemort?  This is kind of interesting.  To tell you 
the truth, I can't think of anything Sirius has done that would 
inconsistent with this part of Jo Ellen's idea.  After all, Sirius 
could have behaved in that protective, fatherly way in GoF to make 
sure Harry survived to the Third Task.  ::shivers at the idea that 
Sirius the Death Eater is in the graveyard watching Harry being 
tortured::  

Somehow, I know deep down that Sirius was not/is not/won't be a 
traitor to Harry and Dumbledore, but I just can't prove it.  Not yet, 
anyway.

Cindy (who must admit that being "dead sexy" probably is not a very 
good defense)




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  7 01:26:55 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 01:26:55 -0000
Subject: Sirius As Future Traitor?  (WASsnape and sirius as a possible future traitor
In-Reply-To: <a3sk6a+ngge@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3sl50+dtv1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34810

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> Somehow, I know deep down that Sirius was not/is not/won't be a 
> traitor to Harry and Dumbledore, but I just can't prove it.  Not 
yet, 
> anyway.

I agree. Sirius is not able to betray Harry - wasn't able to betray 
James. Dumbledore won't, either. Nor will Lupin. Yet... of those 
three, I find Sirius least likely to betray Harry. Can't say why... 
Most touching is Harry's descreption of what he needs: "Someone like 
Mom or Dad: An adult wizard who truly cares for him and to whom he 
can tell his problems without need to feel embarassed..." Just as 
soon as he realises what he needed: Sirius.

As I see it, Sirius has devoted his life and soul to Harry.




From theennead at attbi.com  Thu Feb  7 01:49:49 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 01:49:49 -0000
Subject: Where's the Canon? (Part Two) -- Fans, Subversion, Snape & the DEs
In-Reply-To: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C91728075329@cnncex01.turner.com>
Message-ID: <a3smft+ajf5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34811

Now, where were we?  Ah, yes.  Subversive reading.

Subversive reading tends to proliferate wherever there is reader 
anxiety, or wherever there exists a strong conflict between reader 
approval and reader discontent.  Works which simply offend do not 
inspire such readings; works which both offend and appeal do.  
Subversion is a symptom of deep reader ambivalence about the work as 
a whole; it represents a conflict between the reader's desire to 
engage fully in the text and his reluctance to do so, a reluctance 
often based in the feeling that certain aspects of the work are (or 
may prove to be) unsatisfying, disturbing, exclusionary, or even 
morally reprehensible.  Subversive readings are the visible 
manifestations of that conflict Rebecca referred to earlier between 
authorial intent ("what is actually suggested by the text") and 
reader desire ("the way a reader imagines things ought to be").

Now, to some extent _all_ reader speculation is subversive.  Like 
fanfic, speculation represents a reader's attempt to assume, if only 
temporarily, the mantle of authorial power; it is therefore an 
intrinsically subversive act -- as, for that matter, is immersive 
reader engagement itself.  In order to engage with the text on an 
emotional level, we _must_ insert ourselves into that space which 
lies between Absolute Canonical Fact and That Which Canon Does Not 
Prohibit; by doing so, we cannot help but impose our own desires upon 
the text.  Some degree of subversion is inevitable whenever we engage 
deeply with a work of fiction.

When a work of fiction is presented in serialized form, as the HP 
books are, it even further encourages this subversive aspect of 
reading.  The incomplete nature of the serial offers the reader an 
additional level of indeterminacy in which to imagine and to 
speculate -- more room to "play," if you will -- and also invites 
readers to trespass on grounds that are normally off-limits.  Readers 
of Shakespeare, for example, may feel free to speculate about Iago's 
motivations, but they cannot debate the actions he takes within the 
scope of the play itself: these are already canonically set.  Readers 
of serialized fiction, on the other hand, both can and do speculate 
about even those things which _will_ eventually become canonical 
certainty; they are permitted to exercise their imagination over even 
those aspects of the text which normally fall firmly under the 
authorial aegis.

This is one of the reasons, I think, that serialized fiction 
(television shows, comic books, novels presented as parts of longer 
on-going series, and so forth) tends to attract 'fans,' while 
completed works are more likely to garner 'appreciators.'  The 
difference between the two lies not only in degree of obsession, but 
also in style of engagement.  'Fans' read differently than, say, 
academics do.  They immerse themselves into their chosen texts more 
deeply, more imaginatively, more personally -- and far more 
subversively.  Fan readings are often characterized by ambivalence 
and anxiety.  

The serialized format encourages this because it invites readers to 
don the authorial mantle by entering into a highly active speculative 
relationship with the text, while simultaneously acknowledging that 
the mantle's 'rightful owner' may reclaim it at any time and (come 
the next installment) render the reader's participation in the 
construction of the text utterly invalid.  This is practically a 
recipe for subversive reading, and fandoms -- both of HP and of other 
works -- are characterized by the strange blend of enthusiasm and 
anxiety that this dynamic inspires.  Fan readings and speculations 
always tend toward the subversive end of the spectrum of canonical 
plausibility: this is one of the primary characteristics of 'fandom.'

Wherever there is reader anxiety, that is where subversive reading 
will be most evident.  Because there are specific types of things 
that tend to cause readers unrest (internal contradiction, moral 
absolutism, rigid stereotyping, seeming exclusion of certain segments 
of the population, and anything religious or political are some of 
the Biggies), it is usually not too difficult to anticipate where 
the "fault lines" of a work might lie.

Some fault lines are common to all fandoms.  Sexual preference and 
activity is one such line: both slash readings and speculation about 
the "hidden" lives of adult characters are popular across the board, 
in part because readers are made uneasy by the suspicion that in 
fiction, as in real life, certain aspects of the characters' lives 
are being glossed over, hidden from view, or possibly even lied about 
by the authorial voice.  Sympathy For The Devil readings are also 
universally popular fan responses.  Again, this reflects the fan's 
tendency to view the fictional world as possessing a reality outside 
of the text itself, combined with the suspicion that the Author May 
Be Not Quite Truthful, that the "real truth" is likely far more 
morally complex than the authorial voice is willing to acknowledge.

The fault lines specific to HP fandom fall in rather predictable 
places.  Blood Will Tell vs. Choice Over Blood is one such fault 
line: internal thematic contradiction always inspires reader unrest.  
House Slytherin and its role registers consistently high on the 
Richter Scale as well, partly because it partakes of the Sympathy For 
the Devil dynamic, but also largely because of the inconsistency 
factor: adult readers tend to find Slytherin=Evil jarringly 
inconsistent with the books' generally high level of humanism and 
moral complexity.  Snape and Draco are popular characters for both 
fan speculation and fanfic in part because they serve to personify 
reader unease with these aspects of the work (and, in the case of 
Snape, reader approval at signs of the series' growing movement away 
from the original source of anxiety and discontent).

<deep breath>

So.  To get back to the original topic under discussion, I suppose 
that my real question regarding Snape's relationship with his 'old 
Slytherin gang' was this:

Given that canon is silent on this subject; and given that a case can 
be made for a supposition that Snape actually got on quite well with 
his old DE accomplices (it is not ruled out by the text, and there 
are a few places that would seem to support this reading); and given 
that this is, after all, a fan forum which specializes in borderline-
subversive readings; and given that Sympathy For the Devil readings 
are a popular fan hobby in general; and given that Slytherin=Evil is 
one of the fault lines along which we tend to see reader speculation 
venturing into subversive territory in HP fandom in particular; and 
given that one of the major reasons that Snape is so popular in 
general is because in many ways he is himself a rather subversive 
character...

<*very* deep breath>

Given all of that, then WHY should "Snape really loathed those guys, 
always did" seem so overwhelmingly prevalent an assumption, while "He 
kinda liked them, actually" seemed so strikingly underepresented?

Or, to put it another way: "Given that Snape's popularity as a 
character is itself in some ways subversive -- we like him largely 
because he stands in _opposition_ to those aspects of JKR's work 
which strike us as annoyingly morally simplistic -- why then would we 
prefer to fall back on those very aspects of the work which we found 
so unsettling in the first place when we try to imagine Snape's 
relationship with his old DE colleagues?"

That, at any rate, was what I meant by my original question.  Since 
then, though, a number of people have crawled out from under their 
rocks to express their support for "Snape liked them," and I've been 
directed to a number of fanfics based on this hypothesis as well.  So 
it would seem that "Snape liked them" was not, in fact, nearly as 
neglected a position as I had initially believed.

This discussion now seems to have become focussed on issues of 
canonical _plausibility._  That's fine.  I'm perfectly happy to 
discuss that.  Just to clarify, though, my original query was really 
more a question of popularity than plausibility -- it was not so 
much "why do people think that canon suggests that Snape detested his 
old classmates" as it was "why do people seem to _want_ to believe 
that Snape must have detested his old classmates" -- which is not 
really at all the same thing.

So.  A few Snape issues, looked at both from the point of view of
plausibility _and_ popularity.

Rebecca and I were speculating on the degree to which Snape was a 
loner in his younger days.  

I cited as evidence for the notion that he was not always a loner 
Sirius' comment that he was "part of a gang of Slytherins," adding 
that: "You don't get identified as 'part of a gang' unless you hang 
out with the gang's other members on a fairly regular basis."  I 
would also add to this Sirius' use of the word "famous" (rather than, 
say, "notorious") when he describes young Snape's reputation for 
curse-work: to my mind this suggests that Snape's facility with 
curses did indeed make him popular with at least certain segments of 
the student body -- his fellow Slytherins, for example.

I also, in previous posts, suggested that both Snape's evident 
nervousness around Moody (who, it is strongly implied, killed his old 
classmate Rosier) and the very depths of his bitterness could support 
the notion that the ill-fatedness of his old gang came as a real 
emotional blow -- that he had, in other words, continued to hold some 
affection for them as individuals even after abandoning their once-
shared cause.

Rebecca countered by pointing out that Snape's obsession with the 
Marauders would seem to have been a solitary endeavor.  Sirius' prank 
was directed at Snape personally, not at his entire gang, and no 
mention is ever made of the rest of the group snooping about after 
the Marauders or trying to get them expelled.

She also offered alternative, and perfectly reasonable, explanations 
for his reaction to Moody: Moody is an *Auror,* after all, and a hard-
nosed and erratic paranoid to boot, so no particular personal history 
is really necessary to explain Snape's reaction to him.

As for the "gang" issue, she wrote:

> OTOH hanging out with a gang doesn't necessitate really feeling a
> part of them, really feeling like a virtual family. It just seems 
> to me that not only does the Snape of the books appear to be an 
> irritable loner, but given the degree to which he seems to act 
> alone and insist on handling things himself, it strikes me that it 
> would be reasonable, based on canon, for someone to imagine that he 
> never *felt* a part of any group as a youth. I'm just defending the 
> people who would imagine it that way -- it seems like one of many 
> possible ways someone would take the canon and extrapolate.

Fair 'nuff.

Viewed from the perspective of canonical "plausibility," I think that 
they are both reasonably plausible interpretations, myself.  I agree 
that "Snape was always a loner" is a perfectly reasonable 
extrapolation from canon, and probably a somewhat *more* plausible 
one than "Snape was once a social creature."

As to why it should be the more *popular* interpretation, even among 
die-hard subversives, however...well, I can think of two 
possibilities.

The first (which Rebecca herself suggested to me in e-mail) is that 
those who identify on a personal level with Snape -- and who are 
therefore those most likely to speculate at length about his teenage 
years -- identify with him _as he appears in canon._  In other words, 
they identify with him as a loner.  Imagining him as always having 
been a solitary creature thus allows readers to project their 
identification onto him in his younger days as well.

The second is tied to the next point, the general unpleasantness of 
Slytherins in general -- and the DEs in particular -- and the 
problems this can cause in imagining what Snape could have found to 
like about them.

Rebecca wrote:

> See, if we are to imagine Snape really liking these people, then
> we have to have some reason to imagine them as likeable.

And later:

> And I stick to my original point that if one imagines Snape to be 
> contemptuous and dismissive of his old friends, then I suggest that 
> JKR gave them the idea. *She* is contemptuous and dismissive of 
> most of her DE characters. Even if they have charismatic (Lucius) 
> or intriguing characteristics (Mrs. Lestrange, for sure) they still 
> seem like villain archetypes. . . . So all we have to go on is Mrs.
> Lestrange, who, however defiant and loyal, still seems like a 
> standard villains, evil-witch type, and Avery who seems to be a 
> groveling toady. My argument is that JKR has portrayed them this 
> way so far, with few or no humanizing, 3D qualities, so it's not 
> out of whack for a fanfic writer or anyone else to imagine that 
> Snape might have found them that way too. Again, it's one of 
> several convincing ways to extrapolate from canon; diverging ways 
> can be convincing too, but I'm defending this one.

That the weight of canonical suggestion rests overwhelmingly on the 
notion that Snape's old DE colleagues were indeed most unpleasant 
characters I do not deny for a moment.  I would point out, though, 
that Snape himself, much as we might enjoy him, is really no charmer 
himself.  He's a sadist, for starters: he actively enjoys others' 
pain and discomfiture.  When he can get away with it, he is cruel and 
abusive to those over whom he holds power, and he really can be the 
most odious toady as well -- his exchange with Fudge at the end of 
PoA is positively *oily.*  (Until the poor guy snaps, that is, at 
which point he merely appears deranged.)  And this is Redeemed 
Snape!  How much more unpleasant might young DE Snape have been, and 
what might that say about the qualities that he appreciated or 
admired in others?

For that matter, with what characters does Snape seem to get along 
best in canon?  Aside from Dumbledore, who is obviously a special 
case, the character he seems to me to have the most casual and easy 
relationship with is *Filch* -- not a person I imagine most readers 
would find particularly likeable.  But (snappish comments and that 
one sadistic smirk over Filch's grief for his petrified cat aside) 
Snape seems to get along with him all right, actually.  Better than 
he seems to get along with most people, I'd say.

I still maintain that what Snape himself might have found "likeable" 
is not necessarily what we would find at all endearing or appealing.  
I also think that in terms of canonical plausibility, JKR herself 
probably does not imagine Snape to have very pleasant taste in 
companions.  (She seems, overall, to like the character far less than 
many of her readers do.)

I can, however, readily see why those who identify with Snape might
prefer to reject the notion that he could possibly have ever liked 
such people.  They certainly do not, to our way of thinking, seem 
like terribly likeable individuals.  

Although Mrs. Lestrange sure was *sexy,* wasn't she?  I...er...

<blinks nervously around room, then retreats behind coffee mug>

Well...er, yes.  Um...never mind.

<clears throat>

The issue of DE likeability is closely related to the last (and, to 
my mind, most vital) question -- that of the perceived emotional 
inability of Slytherins in general, and DEs in particular, to form 
anything that we might consider real friendships.

I wrote:

> <I asked why people seem to find it impossible to imagine the 
> future Death Eaters ever having formed friendships>

Rebecca suggested:

> Maybe because JKR has yet to portray a sympathetic Slytherin other 
> than Snape....Let's face it -- JKR's Slytherin is the House of Bad 
> Guys. Snape is the only exception so far.

When I then responded by expressing my doubts about the possibility 
of a full quarter of Britain's wizarding population being composed of 
murderous sadists or cowardly toadies with little or no redeeming 
qualities, Rebecca answered:

> All I'm saying is that JKR has portrayed them like that so far. 
> Yes, it seems unreasonable and I'm not crazy about it either. Here 
> again, I need to make a distinction between canon and real-world 
> reasonability. In canon the decency deck is stacked against the 
> Slytherin grads.

I agree that right now, this does indeed seem to be the case.  Ever 
since my experience with my "subversive" Snape-the-Recanted-Voldie-
Supporter theory, though, I've been decidedly leery about writing off 
JKR's apparent moral simplicity too quickly.  It seems possible to me 
that the series might continue its forward motion into the realms of 
moral ambiguity, in which case this aspect of canonical suggestion 
might well start to shift even further than it already has away from 
Slyth=Evil.  Only time will tell.

For now, though, I certainly agree with you that the text encourages 
us to read Slyth grads -- and particularly Death Eaters -- as people 
who are not capable of true friendship, possibly not even capable of 
any real form of affection.  They're Dark Wizards, they're deeply 
spiritually corrupt, they are selfish people who at heart can care 
for nothing but themselves.  I agree that as things currently stand, 
this is indeed the most canonically plausible interpretation.

I still do find myself troubled, however, by the fact that even 
readers who firmly *reject* this aspect of canonical suggestion when 
it comes to other speculations and conjectures seem to fall right 
back into it when they start speculating about Snape and his old 
Slytherin gang.  This gets back to a question of reader desire, 
rather than of canonical plausibility.  Why do people seem to _want_ 
to imagine things this way?  It strikes me as weirdly inconsistent 
with the reading habits of the fandom in general, and of Snape fans 
in particular.  Where did all of those subversive tendencies suddenly 
disappear to?  What on earth *happened?*

It is this, it is this that oppresses my soul.

I still maintain that the most likely answer to the question is 
simply that people feel the need to paint the other DEs blacker than 
black, so that Snape's grey can seem lighter in comparison.  And 
frankly, I find that a bit disappointing.

For one thing, if Snape really _was_ always a cut above all of the 
other DEs -- morally, ethically, spiritually, intellectually, or what 
have you -- then to my mind that seriously devalues his eventual 
defection to the side of Good.  It makes it a matter of essentialism, 
rather than existentialism: he was _always_ better than all the rest 
of them by his very nature, and so he made a choice that none of the 
rest of them could ever have made.  I find this idea...oh, I don't 
know.  Distasteful, I suppose.  Both distasteful and severely 
disappointing.  

Snape is by far my favorite character in the books, and he is so
largely because he seems to stand in opposition to what otherwise 
comes across as a disturbingly essentialist fictional universe.

Yes, yes, I *know* what Dumbledore says about the importance of 
individual choice and all of that, but when it comes right down to 
it, JKR's universe still seems to be strongly essentialist.  Children 
resemble their parents; bad people are either (a) ugly or (b) 
attractive, but only in a slick, unwholesome, dubious sort of way; 
and by God, if Daddy was a Death Eater, you're stuck in House 
Slytherin and surely headed straight down the road to damnation.

Snape appeals because from an essentialist perspective, everything 
about the man is just completely and utterly *wrong.*  He is 
unattractive and unwholesome-looking, his office is filled with nasty 
dead things that smell bad, and he is temperamentally inclined to 
bitterness and envy and cruelty.  He is not, shall we say, exactly 
one of the Elect.  

And yet, he is permitted to have made correct choices, thus breaking 
out of the mold that the universe otherwise seems to impose on its 
inhabitants.  Snape is really the series' only compelling proof that 
the existentialist ethos Dumbledore proclaims is at all *true.*

So while canonical plausibility may indeed weigh against a reading of 
the Death-Eater-to-be members of Snape's old gang as anything but 
utterly worthless human specimens, I don't really find that enough of 
an explanation.  Fan speculation is subversive by nature, and it does 
seem to me that the fan culture as a whole shares my sense of 
discomfort with the books' essentialist tendencies.  Canonical 
plausibility weighs against Redeemable Draco as well, and yet that is 
an *immensely* popular fan reading.  Fans are not known for their 
tendency to balk at subversion.

So I confess to finding the immense popularity of "Snape never really 
liked his old DE colleagues -- how could he have, after all?  Unlike 
him, those guys were *really* bad!" to be not only profoundly 
unsatisfying, but also just plain puzzling.  I don't deny that it can 
be readily defended in terms of canonical plausibility, but I can't 
help but wonder why on earth so many people who seem otherwise 
perfectly happy to engage in subversion seem to *like* it so very 
much.


--- Elkins, wondering if she's made things any more clear, or merely
muddied the waters with far *far* too much verbiage.




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Thu Feb  7 02:16:34 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 02:16:34 -0000
Subject: Why the Veritaserum theory is all wet
In-Reply-To: <a3s132+sn26@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3so22+m421@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34812

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:
> Tex wrote:
> > >... AFAIKT, Cannon doesn't tell us Sirius' 
> > > motive for the prank, i.e. why Serius Told Snape about the
Shack.
> > > I think Snape spiked Serius' pumpkin juice with Veritaserum and
> > > caused him thus to babble. 
> 
> Sheesh, will people stop at nothing to malign my poor,
misunderstood 
> Severus? 

No, I don't mean to malign Snape. He's conflicted and complex, and
has a nasty outlook, tending to blame others for his problems; but
I know lots of (ultimately) nice people like that.
> 
> There's a much bigger problem with the "Veritaserum made Sirius
talk" 
> theory, though.  Think about it.  Ok, suppose 16 year old Snape got 
> his hands on carefully controlled Veritaserum, 

Or made it himself? If he knows more curses than his peers, he may
know more potions, too.

> managed to lure Sirius 
> away from his friends, and somehow arranged for Sirius to have
amnesia 
> about the whole thing.  

No amnesia needed. Sirius probaably wouldn't admit he'd been
had.

>(By the way, that kind of contradicts the 
> "Snape is incompetent" theory, doesn't it?)  

No way Snape is incompetent. I keep wondering why DumbDoor
doesn't give him the DADA classes

>So, Snape has Sirius 
> under the influence of veritaserum.  Snape asks "where does Lupin
go 
> each month?" Sirius replies "He goes into a tunnel under the
Whomping 
> Willow.  The tunnel leads to the Shrieking Shack." 

> I can pretty much guarantee that the next words out of Snape's
mouth 
> will be "*Why* does Lupin go to the Shrieking Shack?"  (Or
something 
> to that effect.)  And, of course veritaserumed Sirius will have to 
> reply "Because Lupin is a werewolf."  
> 
Snape would likely have that figured out, already, like Hermione 
did.  Snape is probably the smartest of all JKR's characters, 
including HP.  He doubtless would have followed the Marauders
to the Whomping Willow tree.  At this point, Young Snape knows
Lupin is a werewolf, but not that the others are animagi.  So, there 
is not a lot for Sirius to tell him beyond the fact that the tunnel 
under the tree goes to the Shack, which is Lupin's (and the 
Marauders' hideout) Snape mostly only needed confirmation of
what he has already figured out.

> Snape would have no reason to go to the Shack after that; the Prank 
> would never happen.

Snape _is_ rather full of himself.  My guess is Snape went to the 
Shack to confront and capture Lupin and bring him in 
single-handed, as he thought he was going to do in PoA.  After all,
if the Marauders could do it, it must be safe.  I suspect he had some
curses ready.

As for the varitaserum, I think this is but one possible explanation.
 
If Sirus had done it because the was an impulsive kid and Snape was 
a git, I think JKR would have said so. But Sirius doesn't explain his 
motives to Harry, even when he says he did it.  And Siruis' motives
are simply not explained in canon, so far.

Tex





From tanie_05 at hotmail.com  Thu Feb  7 02:06:19 2002
From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 02:06:19 -0000
Subject: Snape's favoring the Slytherins
In-Reply-To: <a3rve3+l3kj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3sner+dfs0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34813

jklb66 wrote:
> First of all, I love Severus, Sirius, and Remus!  All 3 do the 
right 
> thing by saving Harry's life at various points, and by being on 
> Dumbledore's side fighting the DE's and LV.  All 3 also have 
definite 
> personality flaws that make them very interesting.

Well, I'm not a Snape fan, but I do have to give you that one. He 
actually has saved Harry's life(I don't remember how Remus did it 
though. Maybe my memory's failing me.) though, I still don't really 
like him. (Sorry to all the Snape fans...wait, no I'm not.)

> Those who attack Snape frequently cite his obvious favoring of 
Draco 
> and the other Slytherins, and his in-class cruelty to the 
Gryffindors 
> (especially Harry and Neville).  Why does he do this?  
> Harry-- Snape hated James; Harry is "just like James." 

Maybe there's another reason to that. Yes, Harry is a lot like James. 
But let's say all this stuff about how Snape secretly loved Lily is 
true. Well, if we review the facts, Lily didn't have to die. She did 
so only because Voldemort was going to kill her child. So now, she is 
dead & Harry, a living reminder of that fact, is at Hogwarts, 
constantly, but unknowingly, torturing him with the fact that he 
shall never see her again. I think he is unbelievably bitter at Harry 
for both being like James & being Lily's son, who envitably caused 
her death.

> Neville- We don't know for certain, but other posts have 
speculated. 

Now to this I have no clue whatsoever. I have been wondering myself. 
Why mainly Neville? 
 
> The Slytherins-  Quite a few of the Slytherin students have parents 
> who are DE's (Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle we know of, and there are 
> probably more.)  If you were Severus Snape, once and future spy for 
> Dumbledore within the DE's, wouldn't you think it prudent to prefer 
> the DE's kids over all others in the school?  

Good point. That way no one's suspicious.

> Should LV ever rise 
> again, which Dumbledore and his loyal band anticipate, Snape is 
their 
> best chance at planting a spy within the DE's.  But for it to work, 
> it will need to appear to the other DE's as if he has been on their 
> side all along, and merely pretending to be loyal to Dumbledore.  
His 
> overt favoring of Slytherins will be an asset here.  His overt 
hatred 
> of Gryffindors, the same effect.  And yes, I do belive that at the 
> end of GoF, Dumbledore did indeed send Snape back to LV.  No wonder 
> the poor man went pale at the thought of the task in front of him.  
> Did Snape manage to con LV, or is LV just toying with him?  We 
don't 
> know yet.

Hmmm....would Dumbledore knowingly put a man in a position where he 
could possibly be killed? I don't know...but maybe it's just me. 
Maybe I'm wrong. Oh well. We should find out in the next book. Until 
then.....

-Kyrstyne
(who is starting to like Snape, but not too much to make a real 
difference like Sirius & Lupin do)





From rebecca.allen at turner.com  Thu Feb  7 02:35:31 2002
From: rebecca.allen at turner.com (Allen, Rebecca)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 21:35:31 -0500 
Subject: Where's the Canon? (Part One) -- Canonical "suggestion" and p
	lausibility
Message-ID: <759A085B4DB9AF47AD5BB22098C91728075381@cnncex01.turner.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34814

Hello all. I'm replying to Elkin's post of today #34802. It would just be too long to do a point-by-point commentary, so I hope it's OK with everyone if I just make a general reply. I do think her discussion is fascinating, and while I think I concede most of it, I shall add my thoughts, which might or might not clarify things. :-)

My initial preamble (from post 33930) tried to make a distinction between a canonical reading and one based on extra-canonical factors. This statement reflected my understanding about this list, which is that is was primarily devoted to canonical discussions, to the point that it needs separate sister lists devoted to speculation, fanfic, chatter, the film, and so on. So while I appreciate that the mere concept of 'what canon suggests' is fraught with gray areas up the wazoo, my understanding was that for the purposes of this list, there was some concept of a distinction between where the canon reasonably suggests something and where beyond that speculation lies. Mods, long-time members, please correct me if I have the wrong idea!

Thus, on this list it would always be a fair question to ask a fellow poster "where are you getting this idea?" and expect them to make that distinction, either to cite a quote from the canon or admit 'well, it's my gut instinct,' or 'well, because my idea goes with the moral of the story,' or 'because character Q. is similar to another character in a similar book,' etc. (And people on this list successfully make that distinction all the time.) To put it better, I have faith that there is a canon with 'canonical fact' (you can quote it) around which one may draw a little halo of reasonableness, and we'll call this 'canonical suggestion.' So while any real interpretation or appreciation of a text, or as you say yourself, any real reading at all, is based on a constellation of issues, still I think that one can always go back to the original text and actually look at what it says. And *then* argue over what it means, and do so within degrees of likelihood and probability. So y!
es, I have faith that there is such a thing as a canon as a starting point. And you are correct that it might be an inherently unstable and self-contradictory canon -- but you can still quote these discrepancies. :-) And while as usual I don't think we are in utter disagreement with anything here, I get the impression my security with the possibility of arguing for canonical suggestion is probably a little stronger than yours. Otherwise this list would not itself strive to make a distinction between canon-based and speculation. 

Having said that, perhaps some of my responses to you could have been a little flippant in suggesting that 'canon absolutely implies blah blah blah' without substantiating it in canon myself -- or without considering *all* canonical evidence. But I would say that this would be more the result of my own shortcomings and less the problem of the lack of an independent canon.

As to your example of whether Draco will or will not be redeemed, it's very well thought through and thorough and I have nothing bad to say about it. I *think* I get your point, if your point is that going by canon (and a lot of other sources) that the very same information can be read in opposite ways. And I don't believe that I ever contradicted that in my previous posts; if I did I was wrong. I *thought* I was arguing something similar, that one speculation (Snape never liked or at least now hates his old friends) could be supported in canon just as well as another (Snape has deep regrets about betraying them), based on a *reasonable* (yes, it's a weasel word, but I defend it) examination of what is written in the books. I was *never* trying to say the bulk your interpretation was *disproved* by canon. OK, there might have been some details I disputed, but we are free to do that. However, I was and still am defending the idea that there is a concrete, separate entity know!
n as canon that we can quote, summarize, allude to and otherwise use as a basis to go on from there.

Which never precludes a subversive reading! But if one is to make subversive readings, IMHO, they have to be backed up pretty well from the text, which you might be able to do, quite well.  So I invite you to send me your Avery post, on or off list, if you think it will in any way amuse or enlighten me.

Is this more clear? Less clear? I expect I shall spend much more time replying to your next post,
Rebecca


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




From editor at texas.net  Thu Feb  7 02:36:20 2002
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 20:36:20 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 2
References: <20020206164139.11824.cpmta@c006.snv.cp.net>
Message-ID: <00a001c1af80$3b4c10c0$9d7c63d1@texas.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34815

"Cindy (unclear on how we will ever find out the truth about Snape's backstory given the limits of Harry's POV, given that Sirius is clueless, and Dumbledore is tight-lipped)."

------->I have visions of Harry ending up in Snape's chambers somehow (he's been in his office) and spotting something odd or noteworthy that is later explained, by someone who would have said nothing if unasked. Does that make sense?

--Amanda


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




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Thu Feb  7 02:41:38 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 02:41:38 -0000
Subject: Snape's favoring the Slytherins
In-Reply-To: <a3sner+dfs0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3sph2+e2o9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34816

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tanie_05" <tanie_05 at h...> wrote:
> jklb66 wrote:

> Well, I'm not a Snape fan, but I do have to give you that one. He 
> actually has saved Harry's life(I don't remember how Remus did it 
> though. Maybe my memory's failing me.) 

It was a bit indirect. Lupin gave Harry the Patronum spell in PoA.

> Hmmm....would Dumbledore knowingly put a man in a position where he 
> could possibly be killed? 

Not unlees he has to, and then the person must be willing. I don't
think D'Dore would endanger someone against their will or without
their knowledge.





From editor at texas.net  Thu Feb  7 02:49:12 2002
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 20:49:12 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape knew about the passageway
References: <a3s6ka+s33v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <010601c1af82$07335b20$9d7c63d1@texas.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34817

Judyserenity mentioned:
  By the way, there are also a bunch of other passageways that Lupin knows about (such as the one that goes from the one-eyed witch to Honeydukes.)  We don't know if Dumbledore is aware of these passageways; Snape clearly is not, as he examines the one-eyed witch and doesn't discover its secret. 
  ----->this is Amanda now.
  I want to point out, to no particular end, that the Marauder's Map itself may be a red herring. It has made us focus on the passageways to such an extent that we have forgotten there may be others that not even the marauders found (as witnessed by the Chamber of Secrets). I think there will be other really important unknown passageways, which will catch us totally by surprise because the omniscience of the Map has made us forget that while it is enchanted to reveal the identities of the people it shows, it cannot be enchanted to reveal passageways its makers knew nothing about.

  Just a thought.

  --Amanda


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




From cindysphynx at home.com  Thu Feb  7 03:04:31 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 03:04:31 -0000
Subject: Where's the Canon? (Part One) -- Canonical "suggestion" and plausibility
In-Reply-To: <a3seea+4fp6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3sqrv+arh0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34818

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I think that both parts of 
this post are very thought-provoking.  There is a *lot* here, and I 
can't wrap my mind around all of it, at least not yet.  

But it does touch on something I've always wondered about, so I'll 
pull a chunk out and ask if anyone has thoughts about it:

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

Elkins wrote:

<snip>

>[C]anon itself is often ambiguous or self-
> contradictory, open to many equally-plausible interpretations; on 
> many issues, it is simply silent.  When this happens, then readers 
> must turn to non-canonical considerations -- themselves often 
> ambiguous or self-contradictory -- to decide which of competing 
> potential canonical 'truths' they wish to privilege.  Because there 
> are so many non-canonical factors open for consideration, however, 
> and because many of these are intensely personal, no two readers 
are 
> likely to construct 'canonical suggestion' in precisely the same 
> way.  Some disagreement over what is in fact suggested or implied 
by 
> the text is unavoidable.


>AND 

>That said, however, I think that we would both agree that there _is_ 
> such a thing as 'canonical purity,' and that some interpretations 
> adhere to it far more strictly than others.  Even on subjects about 
> which canon is silent, we generally do recognize certain theories 
as 
> more 'plausible' -- by which we mean, 'more likely to be what the 
> author intended' -- than others.  We recognize the existence of a 
> thing called 'Spirit of Canon,' a spirit which can be either 
> respected or violated.  Because the Spirit of the Canon is a thing 
of 
> nuance and inference and tone, it may be difficult to define in 
> precise terms, but we believe in it nonetheless.  It's a lot like 
> pornography that way -- we may not know exactly what it is, but we 
> recognize it when we see it.  ;-)
> > 

There's nothing in this passage I disagree with.  I think it is quite 
reasonable, as Elkins suggests, to view interpretation of canon on a 
bit of a continuum.  So straight to my question, then:  On what basis 
can we say that a particular idea or theory is or is not supported by 
canon?

Let me explain.  Obviously, if I say Lupin is not a werewolf, that 
statement is not supported by canon and is directly contradicted by 
canon.  That's easy; I will be shot down on this list.

It also seems to me to be an easy case if someone makes up a never-
mentioned-in-canon magical device to solve a problem with a theory 
they'd like to support.  You know, like "He must have had an X-ray 
vision device."  Or adds in an existing magical device where one has 
not been mentioned:  "Oh, he must have had an invisibility cloak." 

But I have seen theories that just strike me as inconsistent with 
canon, and I find it difficult to say exactly why that is.  An 
example is the idea that Lupin's backstory is that he worked as an 
unpaid Auror.  That sounds wrong to me, but why is it any more wrong 
than saying Bagman really was a Death Eater?  Where, oh where, is the 
bright line between a fair discussion of HP canon (including 
predictions and spinning fun theories) and speculation that is so 
wild as to be disregarded as fanciful?

This dilemma frustrates me because, without some sort of limitations 
on what is fair interpretation of canon, our discussions can get 
pretty ridiculous in a hurry.  It also matters because list rules 
require SHIPpers to have a basis in canon for their SHIPping 
arguments, so what is and is not a fair basis?  

Anyway, please understand that I am not saying that my own ideas are 
pure and canon-based and beyond reproach, because they frequently are 
not, as has been proven more often than I would like.  I do wonder, 
however, to what extent it is possible to say that a theory is 
playing fast and loose with canon.  

Cindy (hoping that people will continue to spin creative theories 
because she has fun thinking about them)




From boggles at earthlink.net  Thu Feb  7 03:20:18 2002
From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 21:20:18 -0600
Subject: The Marauder's Map, Again (was: Re: Snape knew about the
 passageway)
In-Reply-To: <010601c1af82$07335b20$9d7c63d1@texas.net>
References: <a3s6ka+s33v@eGroups.com>
 <010601c1af82$07335b20$9d7c63d1@texas.net>
Message-ID: <f05010402b887a074cfa6@[66.32.49.163]>

No: HPFGUIDX 34819

At 8:49 PM -0600 2/6/02, Amanda wrote:
>
>   ----->this is Amanda now.
>   I want to point out, to no particular end, that the Marauder's Map 
>itself may be a red herring. It has made us focus on the passageways 
>to such an extent that we have forgotten there may be others that 
>not even the marauders found (as witnessed by the Chamber of 
>Secrets).

Which brings up a couple of points I've always wondered about:

1) Presumably the Chamber and its waterslide passageway are _not_ on 
the Map.  (If they were, Gred and Forge would have known about them 
during the events of CoS.)  What would someone watching the Map see 
when someone entered the passage behind the sink?  Would they simply 
"fall off" the Map, or would their dot hover uncomfortably in Moaning 
Myrtle's bathroom?  If the latter, it must have been awfully crowded 
in there (on the map) during the book's climax.

2) Would Riddle have ever appeared on the map?  Ghosts do (at least, 
Peeves does) - is the "spirit" in the book strong enough to show up?

3) Did Voldemort appear on the map when he was riding Quirrell's 
skull?  I assume not, since I can't think of a reason for the Twins 
to not use the map during that year - but why not?  How foolable is 
the map?

I can't find any evidence in the books for any of these.  None of 
them are plotbreakers - the Twins just might not be very observant, 
just like they never happenned to look for Scabbers on the map.  But 
I still wonder . . .

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



From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Feb  7 03:23:07 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 03:23:07 -0000
Subject: Why the Veritaserum theory is all wet
In-Reply-To: <a3so22+m421@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3srus+7p11@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34820

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" <jbryson at r...> wrote:
> > I can pretty much guarantee that the next words out of Snape's
> mouth 
> > will be "*Why* does Lupin go to the Shrieking Shack?"  (Or
> something 
> > to that effect.)  And, of course veritaserumed Sirius will have 
to 
> > reply "Because Lupin is a werewolf."  
> > 
> Snape would likely have that figured out, already, like Hermione 
> did.  Snape is probably the smartest of all JKR's characters, 
> including HP.  He doubtless would have followed the Marauders
> to the Whomping Willow tree.  At this point, Young Snape knows
> Lupin is a werewolf, but not that the others are animagi.  So, 
there 
> is not a lot for Sirius to tell him beyond the fact that the 
tunnel 
> under the tree goes to the Shack, which is Lupin's (and the 
> Marauders' hideout) Snape mostly only needed confirmation of
> what he has already figured out.

I'm sorry, that makes no sense whatsoever to me.  You're saying that 
Snape fed Sirius Veritaserum to find out how to get past the 
Whomping Willow, went into the tunnel while fully aware that there 
would be a werewolf waiting for him on the other side, and then 
decided not only that it was Sirius' fault, but that all the 
Marauders had conspired to murder him?  I know Snape has believed 
some irrational things, especially in PoA, but that's not 
irrationality, that's raving dementia.  Total dissociation from 
reality.  Cluck-cluck, gibber-gibber, my old man's a mushroom, 
totally bonkers.  And whatever else may be wrong with Snape, I've 
seen nothing to indicate that he's certifyably psychotic.

> If Sirus had done it because the was an impulsive kid and Snape 
was 
> a git, I think JKR would have said so. But Sirius doesn't explain 
his 
> motives to Harry, even when he says he did it.  And Siruis' motives
> are simply not explained in canon, so far.

But they are, on page 356 of the US paperback edition:

****
Black made a derisive noise.

"It served him right," he sneered. "Sneaking around, trying to 
figure out what we were up to... always trying to get us expelled..."

****

Now, JKR may not have spelled it out for us in one-syllable words in 
block capital letters, but it's still a lot more canonical evidence 
than we have for the Veritaserum theory (which is none at all).

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From brewpub44 at earthlink.net  Thu Feb  7 03:30:32 2002
From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 03:30:32 -0000
Subject: Yet Another Snape Theory
In-Reply-To: <d.21bb3caa.2992c903@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a3ssco+uaga@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34821

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., alexpie at a... wrote:
> Apologies if something similar has appeared; I have trouble reading 
the 
> digest when it appears as a download.
>   JKR stated that she envisioned Snape in SS as "35 or 36."  Now, 
then, that 
> would make him about 14 years old at the time of Voldemort's rise 
to power.  
> That, coupled with his knowledge of the dark arts upon his arrival 
at 
> Hogwarts, leads me to believe that he came from a family of Death 
Eaters, a 
> la Malfoy and his cohorts.  Thus, one could say he didn't 
necessarily make a 
> conscious choice (except for the choice to leave V).  

I, for one, really like your theory, on two levels. First of all, it 
sounds like pretty good deductive logic, and secondly, it lends 
credence to my own Snape theory re: Draco Malfoy.

We all know Snape favors Draco in potions class, and probably 
elsewhere. Why? Until GoF, I assumed it was because Draco came from a 
powerful family for which Snape either admires, or which he owes 
allegiance. Yet in GoF, we find the Malfoys and Snape are on opposite 
sides of the over-arcing conflict. So why still support Draco?

I see two possibilities: one, he is trying to still act as a DE and 
is giving Draco a leg-up anyway, but this just doesn't seem to fit.

The more likely possibility, IMHO, is that Snape sees himself in 
Draco: a victim of his parentage. We know nothing of Snape's family 
AFAIK, perhaps they too are LV followers who dragged Snape along. So 
Snape not only betrayed LV & the DEs but also his own family. But he 
feels better for it, for he was nothing but a pawn in a larger game 
and he is much more intelligent and talented to be someone else's 
pawn.

So along comes Draco, a talented and perhaps intelligent (his talent 
shows more often than his intelligence). And Snape sees a kinship 
with the boy. He doesn't want Draco sucked in along with the DEs. So 
Snape befriends him, tries to show him that another adult (father 
figure?) can be trusted.

Then, when the chips are down and Draco has to choose, he actually 
has a choice. Then perhaps Snape becomes for Draco what Sirius is for 
Harry.

For those who see symmetry in literature, there you have a nice 
example.

A Barkeep in Diagon Alley




From brewpub44 at earthlink.net  Thu Feb  7 04:02:37 2002
From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 04:02:37 -0000
Subject: The Recruitment of Pettigrew (was Re: More On Snape's Backstory)
In-Reply-To: <55.2222e447.2992eb2d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a3su8t+boct@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34822

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:
> 
> I've been wondering who recruited Pettigrew?
> 
> Eloise
> 
> 

Aha! You have wondered a great deal of import! Do you mind if I fire 
up a new thread on the subject?

IMHO, LV recruited him himself!

The evidence: He and Wormy are on awfully close terms. Why would 
Wormy go to find LV instead of just being like Karkarov or the 
others? He could have hid anywhere, but he chose to stay with the 
Weasley's to keep in touch with the wizard world and watch the news 
for signs of Voldy. He could have done any number of things, everyone 
thought he was dead! Try to take his point of view: you hang around 
with a bad lot, you can take the shape of a rat, and you can charm 
Muggles. Suddenly, everyone thinks your dead. As I see it, the world 
is your oyster! You can hide anywhere you want. Yet he hangs on to 
find LV, and when he gets his chance, he acts on it (although being 
discovered by the Marauders pushes him along).

The motive: This is not canon, but is my view on what happened. We 
all know James & Sirius are the practical jokers, not just on Snape 
but in general. And the Snape joke was pretty nasty, it could have 
involved actual physical harm (to what degree has been argued before 
so I won't go on). Now, if their teens were anything like my teens, 
everyone is fair game for practical jokes, friend or no friend. I've 
seen many fights and broken friendships because of awry practical 
jokes, and it is very possible this is what happened and why Wormy 
betrayed James (& Sirius too). And it is also clear that Sirius can't 
figure it out: again in my experience the practical joker simply 
can't understand what the big deal is. "It was only a joke!" is the 
common refrain, meaning he is basically clueless as to what damage 
(physical, psychological, whatever). He can't fathom Wormy hates him 
for "that simple little thing" and is blown away when Wormy betrays 
the Potters.

The recruitment: So along comes Voldy. Voldy hates the Potters, for 
reasons that are not fully explained as of yet. I suspect there is 
more to the story of the murder of hte Potters beyond "they were in 
the way", and I think most of you do, too. He knows he has to kill 
James and the boy. Yet Harry's parents are talented, and have 
talented and loyal friends and mentors (no one messes with Dumbledore 
lightly). He needs an inside man. So he studies their circle of 
friends, and because he too was treated badly as a boy, he can spot 
other troubled youths whereas those with happy childhoods simply 
don't understand others' childhood miseries. He spots Wormy, a lesser 
member of the Marauders, treated poorly by the others. He sees the 
tension. And he acts. He befriends Wormy somehow (perhaps through 
initial magical deception), and slowly poisons him further against 
his own friends. Eventually, DE city.

Then comes the betrayal, the murder, and a little scar on a baby's 
forehead.

A Barkeep in Diagon Alley






From tabouli at unite.com.au  Thu Feb  7 04:44:22 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:44:22 +1100
Subject: LOLLIPOPS strikes back!
Message-ID: <004201c1af92$33260420$e124ddcb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 34823

Under assault from all sides, the Good Battleship LOLLIPOPS sails on, can(n)ons gleaming...

Orrrrright (Tabouli dons her sailor's hat and polishes her captain's badge).  I can see we have a war on our hands here.  Time to start addressing the two main objections to the LOLLIPOPS way of life.

OBJECTION ONE: Too EWW to be TREWW (Marina, Cole, others)

As far as I can see, this objection is based on the view that LOLLIPOPS can't be true because it's mushy and sickening, an overused, trite plot device.  Pah, I say.  What sort of an argument is that?

For a start, let's have a bit more faith in JKR, shall we?  She has, thus far, managed to negotiate Harry being Saved By Mother's Love, his crush on Cho, the Yule Ball, Ginny's crush and various high school romances without descending into Sickly City.  Why are people so convinced that she couldn't handle Snape/Lily with similar style?  I think that the absence, so far, of any significant romantic twist is actually in LOLLIPOPS' favour, especially seeing she's spelled out that hormones will be taking hold in the next few books.  Better a tastefully handled romantic twist rather than the five billionth Polyjuice or Animagus twist any day.

For another thing, why is Snape/Lily by definition mushy and sickening anyway?  I can't speak for my entire crew, of course, but in *MY* version of LOLLIPOPS there is absolutely no need for Snape and Lily to have had a relationship at any point.  In fact, I think this is very unlikely.  I say Snape had a huge, unrequited crush on Lily (and since when are those mushy?  They're torturous and humiliating!).

Cindy:
> Good heavens, if Lily rejects Snape at Hogwarts, 
marries James and has a child by James, doesn't Snape get over this 
at some point?  Why isn't it equally likely that Snape would love to 
see Lily die as revenge for not loving him?  You know, "If I can't 
have her, nobody can have her?"  Indeed, given Snape's unforgiving 
and vindictive personality, isn't that scenario more likely than that 
Snape changes sides in the war because of LUV of Lily? <

It may be just me, but I think the sort of boy Snape would have been (victimised, resentful, insecure, bitter, long-term grudge bearing) is a perfect candidate for putting the first pretty girl who is kind to him on a pedestal and hanging on to a monster unrequited crush for years.  She can do no wrong.  I *know* men like that!  In my experience there is definitely a type of man who never falls out of love with his first love, regardless of whether she dies or marries (or *he* marries) or commits some terrible crime or goes overseas for ten years.

OBJECTION TWO: Not ENUFF to cover STUFF (Cindy, Dicentra, others)

This objection hinges on the view that LOLLIPOPS just ain't strong enough to explain all of Snape's behaviour.  It seems to rest on the assumption that LOLLIPOPS says love of Lily is the motivating force behind all of Snape's actions, namely, joining the Death Eaters, changing sides, becoming a spy at "great personal cost", continuing to fight for Dumbledore for the rest of his life, being mean to Harry, persecuting Neville, favouring Draco, his preferences in shampoo, etc. etc. etc.

Now come on.  Let's put that straw man back in the wheat field, shall we?  LOLLIPOPS is not screening a heartwarming feelgood Hollywood movie where Love Conquers And Explains All in the galley every night.  LOLLIPOPS argues that love of Lily was a Key Influence on Snape's actions, not the Holy Text by which he has been running his life since the age of 14.

The Good Ship is far more accommodating that her detractors seem to believe.  There is no reason whatsoever why George and the Prince of Lies and even Mercy couldn't embark with us... *none* of these theories preclude a crush on Lily.  In fact, my own Snape bio suggests a course of events which incorporates elements of all three of these theories.

I suggested that Snape was dabbling in the curses and the Dark Arts with his Slytherin buddies all through high school and felt rejected and alienated by Dumbledore and his darling Gryffindors (brilliant, handsome Sirius, Head Boy Quidditch Star James).  Naturally the prospect of entering an elite Dark Force where he might get respect and recognition for his skills instead of disregard and victimisation must have been tempting.  LOLLIPOPS just adds another layer to this... Lily criticised Sirius for lampooning greasy teen Snape out of kindness and principles, just as Hermione and Ginny stood up for Neville (note that Lily eventually went for the level-headed James, not the flashy Sirius), and Snape fell for her desperately, was too tortured and insecure to do anything about it other than try to be nice to her (hence Sirius' "slimy" epithet), and was insanely jealous when she took up with James instead.  He was already toying with the idea of joining Voldemort, and their marriage was the last straw, pushing him into it (no longer any motivation to be Nice, a lot of anger and bitterness and broken-heartedness to thrash out of his system).

*Then* we can have a dash of George and the Prince of Lies.  Snape joins the Death Eaters, but finds it's not all he hoped.  He blasts a few strangers and Muggles, and though it helps vent some of his anger, on another level he is strangely discomforted.  He is respected, but somehow the respect of fellow torturers and the cruel, half-mad Voldemort who Crucios his own followers is more disturbing than gratifying.  After the initial fury is vented he starts to feel uneasy about what he is doing.  Then he hears of the plans to murder the Potters, bringing back all his memories of Lily, who stood up for him against the persecution friends and future husband.  Much as he hates James and the very idea of Harry, this image brings home to him what he is actually doing - he is about to collude in murdering the two people Lily loves most in the world, causing her intense pain (perhaps V even assigned Snape to do the killing).  In fact, he has already done this to a lot of other people.  What does that make him?  What would Lily think?  What is he doing with his life?

Snape caves in completely in self-loathing and despair, breaks down, runs to Dumbledore, and turns spy (very very risky), passing information about V's plot to him to try to protect the Potters.  He succeeds for over a year before Wormtail finally gets a lucky break and hands over their location to V, resulting in the famous scene at the start of the series.

The "great personal cost" and incredible deed he did to convince D of his loyalty don't have to be anything which directly concerns Lily, as anti-LOLLIPOPS types seem to assume, though if one buys the LOLLIPOPS argument there's probably some connection.  Nor does his loyalty to Dumbledore fourteen years after Lily's death... after all, Dumbledore showed him Mercy and accepted him back into the Good Side after being a Death Eater... surely this is a major thing worthy of loyalty: the memory of Lily doesn't have to be the *only* motivator!  There's almost certainly a lot more to the Snape Story that we just don't know enough about at this point to theorise on.

I suppose we'll just have to wait for the next three books and see.

Captain Tabouli (who sees the remaining three volumes as the only real threat at this point - will she end up going down with her Ship?  Stay tuned for OoP...)


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




From jmmears at prodigy.net  Thu Feb  7 05:15:53 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 05:15:53 -0000
Subject: Snape vs. Sirius, round 2 cont'd
In-Reply-To: <a3rvlh+4ddu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3t2i9+8220@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34824

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "siriusgeologist" <lrcjestes at e...> wrote:


> Weeeeel, it seems JKR states pretty explicitly that Harry's 
> protection is Sirius' motivating factor for his escape from 
Azkaban.  
> I don't have the books at work with me so I can't quote chapter 
and 
> verse, but Sirius states his motivations in the shrieking shack.  
Can 
> anyone back me up on this?  I'll look when I get home, but as 
Penny 
> pointed out while preserving Harry is his primary motivation (why 
> should we doubt what JKR wrote), clearing his name is certainly a 
> strong secondary motivation.  Eating Pettigrew on the spot would 
not 
> have been helpful in that regard. Furthermore remember that Black 
and 
> Lupin were ready to kill him in the shrieking shack (I assume they 
> would have carried the body to dumbledore in order to clear 
> Sirius... )

I happened to have PoA in the room with me and in Chapter 19, 
American edition p362-363  Lupin asks Black how he knew where 
Pettigrew was, and Sirius tells him about seeing the picture of the 
Weasley family in the Daily Prophet he got from Fudge while in 
Azkaban.  He recognizes that Ron's rat is Peter because of the 
missing toe (visible in the photo).  Then, on p.371, in response to 
Hermione's questioning how he escaped from Azkaban, he talks about 
transforming into a dog when things got to be too much for him and 
then says:
"But then I saw Peter in that picture...I realized he was at 
Hogwarts with Harry...perfectly positioned to act, if one hint 
reached his ears that the Dark Side was gathering strength again..."
....."...ready to strike at the moment he could be sure of 
allies...and to deliver the last Potter to them.  If he gave them 
Harry, who'd dare say he's betrayed Lord Voldemort?  He'd be 
welcomed back with honors..."
"So you see, I had to do something.  I was the only one who knew 
Peter was still alive..."
He goes on to say that this knowledge was the thing that gave him 
the will and the strength to escape Azkaban.
So, it's clear in canon that protecting Harry was really his sole 
motivation for escaping Azkaban because the knowledge that he was 
innocent didn't seem to be enough motivation for him to escape for 
the entire 12 years prior to this point (although, now that he's 
out, clearing his name would sure make it easier for him to protect 
Harry).


Jo Serenadust, always happy to back Carole up in defending Sirius




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Thu Feb  7 06:00:12 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 06:00:12 -0000
Subject: (More than) a smidgeon of Snape/Lily
In-Reply-To: <003501c1aee2$b91b4aa0$1d2bdccb@price>
Message-ID: <a3t55c+jugb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34825

Well, I posted the following response to the forum about 22 hours ago, 
and it *still* hasn't shown up.  So, I'm reposting.  My apologies if 
it shows up twice. 


Tabouli noticed that I subscribe to the "Snape Loved Lily" theory, and 
said:
> Congratulations, Judy - your wisdom and sound deductive powers have 
> just won you a free berth on the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS (Love Of Lily 
> Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Severus)!  .... However, 
> as Captain, it is my duty to warn you that taking the "pure 
> speculation" line may impede your chances of promotion...< 

Reporting for duty, Captain Tabouli!  Actually, I have been aware of 
the Good Ship Lollipops for some time now.  The only reason I haven't 
asked for a berth was that I was trying to figure out how to wrangle a 
deluxe stateroom. 

When I said that I was presenting "pure speculation", I meant that the 
theory [that Snape left the DEs because of Lily] taken as a whole goes 
far beyond canon.  It assumes that Snape loved Lily AND Snape was not 
yet working for Dumbledore when Voldy decided to go after the Potters 
AND Snape knew that Voldy was going after them, etc.  Having to string 
together a whole chain of suppositions like that makes the theory less 
likely.  If we look at just the claim that Snape was (and perhaps is) 
in love with Lily, that I'm quite convinced of.  Yeah, I know someone 
on this list said that's "too Jane Austin", but didn't JKR say Jane 
Austin is her favorite author? 

It turns out that I *had* read your LOLLIPOPS Biography (it's post 
28782, for anyone who wants to find it.)  However, I forgot that you 
proposed Lily as the reason why Snape went to Dumbledore's side.  I've 
believed for a long time that Snape loved Lily (since before I joined 
this discussion board), but I'm not sure when I started thinking that 
Lily was the reason he left the DE's. So, I don't know if I got that 
theory from you, or just from reading the books. 


Tabouli also said: 
> [I think] that the plot to murder 
> the Potters (rather than strangers and sundry Muggles) was what 
> shocked Snape into realising what he had become.  Too close to home. 
> Imagining Lily's pain brought home the fact that he'd already helped 
> to inflict that same pain on other people....<

Yep, this is exactly when I think, too.


While still on the topic of everyone's favorite former Death Eater 
(heck, he's probably the *only* former Death Eater!), Tabouli said: 
> I mean, look at Snape!  Are those symptoms of self-loathing or what? 
> Neglecting his appearance, taking out his bitterness and resentment 
> at the world on his students, perfectionism, [etc]...
> ... I wonder, actually, whether Snape and Harry's (and even
> Voldemort's!) childhoods might not have had quite a bit in common. 
> I've certainly heard that severe mistrust of people and bullying the 
> weak and defenceless, notably torturing pets and the like, are
> classic symptoms of a child being abused by his/her carers.<

Now that you mention it, Tabouli, what Snape shows are signs of 
*depression*.  (Please, no one bring up the "half dementor" theory 
again!)  Very interesting.  I should have noticed that before, but I 
don't think I had. 

This doesn't tell us whether Snape was abused, though. It's very hard 
to work backwards from adult symptoms and try to deduce childhood 
traumas.  In fact, it's pretty much impossible.  Responses to trauma 
are too variable and there is too much of a physiological component to 
most symptoms for this to be accurate.  By the way, the best estimates 
are that about 1/3rd of abused children grow up to be abusers 
themselves, which means that most abused children *don't* become 
abusive.  "What proportion of abusive adults were abused as children?" 
is in fact a different question from "What proportion of abused 
children will grow up to be abusive adults"?.  Off hand, I don't know 
know the answer to "What proportion of abusive adults were abused as 
children?" 

Of course, it's possible that JKR has a history of abuse as part of 
Snape's backstory, regardless of how it usually works in the real 
world.

Gee, I feel like I'm writing an serialized essay entitled "Why Snape 
is actually a lovable guy, in one million words or less."  (I bet this 
group has collectively generated *at least* a million words on Snape, 
by the way.)  

I really need to go to bed.

-- Judy





From anmsmom333 at cs.com  Thu Feb  7 06:25:17 2002
From: anmsmom333 at cs.com (anmsmom333)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 06:25:17 -0000
Subject: Canon evidence of Wormtail's mark/Goyle's name
Message-ID: <a3t6kd+cmjk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34826

I read an earlier post about Wormtail's darkmark and knew there was
canon evidence so I looked in GOF (UK paperback version pages 559-560
- "The Death Eaters" chp) and found the following:
"'Hold out your arm,' said Lord Voldemort lazily. 'Oh master...thank
you, master...' He extended the bleeding stump, but Voldemort laughed
again. 'The other arm, Wormtail.''Master, please...please...'
Voldemort bent down, and pulled out Wormtail's left arm; he forced the
sleeve of Wormtail's robes up past his elbow, and Harry saw something
upon the skin there, something like a vivid red tattoo - a skull, with
a snake protruding from its mouth - the same image that appeared in
the sky at the Quidditch World Cup: the Dark Mark." I think that is
pretty much canon evidence that Peter was indeed a DE. (I guess DEs
shouldn't wear short sleeved shirts.)

As for Sirius having one too (no one could ever convince me he is
anything but a Good guy side and not just because he is dead sexy)
well... earlier in GOF "Padfoot Returns" chp UK paperback pg 461 Harry
tells Sirius about Karkaroff showing Snape his arm  and being worried
and "'He showed Snape something on his arm?' said Sirius, looking
frankly bewildered. He ran his fingers distractedly through his filthy
hair, then shrugged again. 'Well, I've no idea what that's about...'"
I know this would be a weak arguement in court but I have faith in my
favorite wizard that he is indeed one of the good guys who just
frequently is a little impulsive and I believe he did not know about
the tattoo.

As for the person who was in an earlier post looking for canon
evidence of Goyle's name... In POA (UK paperback again "The Dementor"
chp pg 63) when HRH are in the compartment with the *sleeping* RJL
(I'm in the camp that is not sure he was in a deep sleep there)..."He
might not be very good company, but Professor Lupin's prescence in
their compartment had its uses. Midafternoon, just as it started to
rain, blurring the rolling hills outside the window, they heard
footsteps in the corridor again, and their three least favourite
people appeared at the door: Draco Malfoy, flanked by his cronies,
Vincent Crabbe and Gregory Goyle." I read this and thought "these are
perfect first names for these two snots." 

Theresa (who thought Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle received what the
deserved in the end of GOF - but is leery of their retribution in OOP)




From theennead at attbi.com  Thu Feb  7 09:42:22 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 09:42:22 -0000
Subject: Remorse  -- Dementors -- the Crouch Family
In-Reply-To: <a3juoc+r4u4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3ti5u+u4st@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34827

Cindy wrote (of Crouch Jr.):

> He didn't exactly decline to switch places with his sick mother.  
> No, he was happy to get out of Azkaban (where he was reliving all 
> of his unhappy memories) to live with dear old dad (where he could, 
> uh, relive a lot of unhappy memories).  

Well.  He *was* dying at the time.  

Of what, though?  Remorse?  Despair?  Pneumonia?  Was young Crouch's
swift decline due to a delicate physical constitution, or was he 
unusually sensitive to the effects of the dementors?  And if the 
latter, then why?  What memories could such a young man have that 
would be so terrible that reliving them would drive him to his death 
bed after only one year in Azkaban?

Being a Death Eater and having helped to torture two people into 
insanity would certainly provide *me* with plenty of bad memories, I 
think, but for this to be the explanation for young Barty's decline, 
then we would have to assume that he actually felt some remorse, 
which doesn't seem terribly consistent with his behavior in GoF.

Of course, that was twelve years later.  People change.

Perhaps it's just because I'm sick, but I rather like imagining 
Crouch Sr. pointing one trembling finger at his Imperio'd son and 
saying: "All right, young man, you just sit there and *think* about 
what you've done!"

And the poor kid having no choice but to comply.

The irony, of course, is that after the first five years, it really 
stopped bothering him all that much.  And somewhere around year 
seven, he started finding it all, well...kinda *cool,* actually.  

And so the teenager who was dying of remorse and despair in Azkaban 
is transformed into a sociopathic sadist, thanks to dear old Dad and 
his misplaced notions of parental duty.

But on a related subject...

Devin wrote:

> I think of remorse as a rather positive emotion, in its being
> often the first step to forgive or apologize and as an emotion
> that is very human and essential.  I bet you anything remorse
> is one of the last things on anyone's mind in Azkaban.

I certainly agree with you that remorse is a *useful* emotion, but 
it's hardly a *happy* one.  The dementors are said to drain their 
victims of happy memories and emotions, not necessarily of beneficial 
ones.  Sirius' knowledge of his own innocence is certainly beneficial 
to him -- it's part of what enables him to keep his sanity -- but the 
dementors can't take it from him because it isn't pleasant.

I'm sure that there's plenty of remorse to go around in Azkaban.  
Just imagine being forced to relive your worst memories when the 
worst things that you can remember are also the worst things you've 
ever *done.*  <shudder>

But that's one of the things that's always bothered me about the use 
of dementors as prison guards, actually.  Aside from the fact that it 
is unspeakably cruel, doesn't it also seem that their presence would 
punish the truly remorseful far more than it would the blase or the 
sociopathic or the simply uncaring?  That just doesn't seem fair, 
somehow.

I also always find myself wondering about that statement that long 
enough exposure to the dementors renders people "just as soulless and 
evil as they are."  Exposing your prisoners to something like that 
really doesn't seem like a very wise idea, does it?  I mean, just 
*think* of the recidivism rate!


<Cindy had to force herself to shake off the mental image of Crouch 
Sr. imploring, "I do and do and do for you, and this is the thanks I 
get?">

Nah.  That was always more Mrs. Crouch's tactic, surely.

"I give, and I give, and I give..."


-- Elkins, now shuddering at a few unhappy memories of her own...




From midwife34 at aol.com  Thu Feb  7 09:46:59 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 09:46:59 -0000
Subject: snape and sirius as a possible future traitor
In-Reply-To: <a3sguu+blke@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3tiej+mcqj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34828

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" <midwife34 at a...> wrote:
> "Wormtail" was definately a Death Eater. Harry's seen him with 
> Voldemort several times (via his scar), and - in Book #4, Peter 
> Pettigrew is a willing servant to Voldemort.

Yes, yes I know that, but it never mentions a death eater tatoo on 
Peter, so thats why I thought Sirius could possibly be a death eater 
without the presence of the "give-away"tatoo .
> 
> Also, in time when one knew not who to trust, why James Potter 
> insisted on trusting Sirius (knowing that one of his friends is 
> traitor) saying Sirius would rather die than betray him? Turst him 
> for Best Man, and godfather to Harry... (I'm inclined to believe he 
> would die for Harry if need be). I find Loyalty and Bravery to be 
> Sirius' main character traits. How come Sirius became so trusted by 
> James? Absolute trust. One thing to trust his *own* life, but 
wife's 
> and son's as well?

Having trust in someone is one thing, but knowing whether that trust 
is valid is quite another thing. I'm just saying enough clues have 
been thrown out there in the previous books, that if JKR wanted to, 
she could develope Sirius as a character who betrays Harry. 

Jo Ellen




From midwife34 at aol.com  Thu Feb  7 10:30:51 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 10:30:51 -0000
Subject: Why the tatoo? WAS :Canon evidence of Wormtail's mark
In-Reply-To: <a3t6kd+cmjk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3tl0r+mjus@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34829

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "anmsmom333" <anmsmom333 at c...> wrote:
> I read an earlier post about Wormtail's darkmark and knew there was
> canon evidence so I looked in GOF (UK paperback version pages 559-
560
> - "The Death Eaters" chp) and found the following:
> "'Hold out your arm,' said Lord Voldemort lazily. 'Oh master...thank
> you, master...' He extended the bleeding stump, but Voldemort 
laughed
> again. 'The other arm, Wormtail.''Master, please...please...'
> Voldemort bent down, and pulled out Wormtail's left arm; he forced 
the
> sleeve of Wormtail's robes up past his elbow, and Harry saw 
something
> upon the skin there, something like a vivid red tattoo - a skull, 
with
> a snake protruding from its mouth - the same image that appeared in
> the sky at the Quidditch World Cup: the Dark Mark." I think that is
> pretty much canon evidence that Peter was indeed a DE. (I guess DEs
> shouldn't wear short sleeved shirts.)

Thank you for that, I could not remember whether Peter had a death 
eater tatoo or not. My original statement was not that I doubted 
Peter was a death eater, but that I was not sure that all death 
eaters had tatoos. It worked well with my theory that Sirius could be 
a possible traitor in future books, as there is no mention of Sirius 
having a death eater tatoo. As you stated, Sirius SEEMS to have no 
knowledge of the tatoos or marks and there significance as I do 
remember that conversation that took place in the cave, now that you 
brought it up. Which, by the way, would it not be stupid to brand 
everyone with your tatoo or dark mark, if you need an undercover 
agent?
> 
>> Jo Ellen




From midwife34 at aol.com  Thu Feb  7 11:32:27 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 11:32:27 -0000
Subject: Moody's maimed body parts and the limitations of wizarding medicine
Message-ID: <a3tokb+fmt5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34830

Sorry, I am behind on my postings and went back and reread some of 
the questions regarding why Moody has a wooden leg and the magic eye, 
and some of the questions regarding wizarding medicine. 

I feel that Moody could not have his leg regenerated because 
obviously the whole thing got blown off at some point. Skele-grow 
only works on bone, to my knowledge , that's why he could not have 
his leg grown back as skin and all were missing. This would also 
explain the eye as it is also soft tissue. Evidently wizards do not 
have a remedy for soft tissue replacement, so far, in the books. But 
I do think its cool that they have artificial eyes that have x-ray 
vision as Moody can see through Harry's robe and tell that he has on 
the funny socks that Dobby gave him. Now what else can Moody/Crouch 
Jr. see with that x-ray eye? Too bad the artificial leg is just 
wooden, there was alot JKR could have done with a magic leg 
prosthesis......

AS for why T riddle's mom died in childbirth, I have already listed 
in a previous post all the childbirth emergencies that can occur 
within seconds that can kill either the mother or child and why the 
accio charm would not be a solution to all childbirth emergencies. I 
also want to add that at the time of T Riddle's birth, there was no 
such thing as fetal monitoring that might alert you to the fact that 
something is wrong during the labor process. At that point in 
history,everyone gave birth in the home. So unless the Midwitch had a 
magic eye, assuming T Riddle's mom had a Midwitch, no one would be 
able to tell there was a problem with the fetus or mother until it 
was too late.  

As for Crouch Jr.'s mother and her fatal disease, assuming it was 
cancer, as someone previously mentioned. I went back to my text books 
to do a little reading on the BIG C. Cancer is a generalized term for 
normal cell growth gone awry, due to various causes. There are 
numerous variations of catalystic reasons related to the immune 
system ( genetic predisposition), and environmental insults that 
trigger this to happen ( this is a very simplistic explanation). 
Since cancer cells are more or less mutations of normal cells, it 
would be difficult to target the specific C cells and irradicate them 
with magic without damaging normal tissue.This is true with 
conventional muggle treatments as well, which is why people sometimes 
do not survive the treatments, chemo and radiation, and cancer 
victims sometimes opt for no treatment, as the treatment for possible 
prolongation of life is worse than the symptoms of the disease when 
death is inevitable anyway.  

Cosmetic surgery- Teeth are more or less bone. This would explain why 
Hermione could have her teeth altered when Malfoy inadvertently 
turned them into gopher teeth. The girl who tried to hex off her acne 
and ended up taking her nose with it, obviously spells like that do 
not work well on soft tissue ( the nose is just skin and cartilage, 
not bone). I can't explain why some wizards would opt to keep 
discolored teeth, other than perhaps physical appearance is not 
important to them. Dudley's tongue- here is where an inconsistency 
lies with my soft tissue theory. Unless the twins have inadvertently 
come up with something that could be used in wizarding medicine and 
are unaware of its potential use for soft tissue regeneration. 

Jo Ellen




From porphyria at mindspring.com  Thu Feb  7 03:11:55 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 22:11:55 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 2
Message-ID: <Springmail.105.1013051515.0.82355800@springmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34831


Amanda wrote:
< "Cindy (unclear on how we will ever find out the truth about Snape's backstory given the limits of Harry's POV, given that Sirius is clueless, and Dumbledore is tight-lipped)."

------->I have visions of Harry ending up in Snape's chambers somehow (he's been in his office) and spotting something odd or noteworthy that is later explained, by someone who would have said nothing if unasked. Does that make sense?>

***

Oh ye of little faith! I like to imagine that Snape has a penseive that Harry could potentially find, but I'm sure Snape would keep it locked up pretty tight. :-) Or Harry will overhear some conversation about Snape while he's wandering around under the invisibility cloak. Or Dumbledore or Hagrid on their deathbeds will make some vital revealation about Snape. Or a new character who knows Snape will turn out to be quite gossipy. Or perhaps Snape will accidentally swallow a mouthful of his veritaserum and blab away....

See, the possibilities are endless. 

~~Porphyria




From ritadarling at ivillage.com  Thu Feb  7 03:30:31 2002
From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (Rita F)
Date: 6 Feb 2002 19:30:31 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Marauder's Map, Again (was: Re: Snape
    knew about the  passageway)
Message-ID: <20020207033031.17969.cpmta@c006.snv.cp.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34832

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020206/b50c8895/attachment.ksh>

From gideoner4 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  7 09:30:57 2002
From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (gideoner4)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 09:30:57 -0000
Subject: Arthur and Lucius--What's in a name?
Message-ID: <a3thgh+gf7i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34833

I admire J.K. Rowling's style of using names to convey meaning. 

Examples include: 
Alastor (Moody)- means 'the avenger'
Voldemort - means 'death stealing' or 'flying death'
Lupin - a form of Lupin means 'werewolf'
Sirius Black - means 'Black Dog' and Sirius is the Dog Star.
Argus (Filch)- Argus is a Greek god who had a hundred eyes, therefore 
was always on the lookout.
Ludo - means 'I play' in Latin (No suprise that Ludo Bagman was into 
sports)
Sibyl - means a 'prophetess'


All these brought me to think about Lucius Malfoy and Arthur Weasley.

In legends and facts concerning King Arthur, we can see that King 
Lucius is involved. The war against Rome ended with King Arthur 
killing King Lucius according to Thomas Malory's and Vulgate's 
version. That brought me to the idea that Lucius Malfoy and Arthur 
Weasley will come face to face each other in battle (which is very 
very likely to happen), and Arthur might be the one to kill Lucius. 

It's just a theory of mine. Does anyone know more about the legends 
of King Arthur and how King Lucius was involved in King Arthur' 
businesses? 

And I was also thinking about Percy (which is an English nickname for 
old French Perceval or Percival). In King Arthur's legends/storeis, 
Perceval was the frail and unexpected kingiht who sought the much 
sought-after Holy Grail. Now, I think Percy could be candidate for an 
unexpected hero (because a lot of people think he might even turn to 
the Dark Side, and Percy is a rigid character, but I don't know what 
could be the Holy Grail's equivalent in the books. I was just struck 
by how Perceval was part of King Arthur's (stress on Arthur)legends. 
WHy did J.K. Rowling cjoose to name Percy as that? Fred, George, 
Bill, Ron, and Ginny (or any form of their names) aren't part of King 
Arthur's legends.


I'll really appreciate your opinion over the whole matter over 
Lucius, Arthur, and Percy's names. My friends and I can't help but 
think that J.K. Rowling could have used the names for a reason. Or 
maybe I am just reading too mucn into everything? Should I even think 
of these things? Do you think it's worth analyzing, or does it sound 
ludicrous? Please tell us what you think.

I may be mistaken, but I have never encountered a discussion over 
Lucius and Arthur's names and their significance. 

Have a nice day, everyone! :D



[Mod Note: I love this thread: Arthurian legend+HP=heaven :) For more info on HP names and their significance, you could try Priscilla Spencer's *excellent*, comprehensive "What's in a Name" site. It can be found at http://www.theninemuses.net/hp/ --JW]









From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Thu Feb  7 14:40:18 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 14:40:18 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Where's the Canon? (Part Two) -- Fans, Subversion, Snape &
 the DEs
Message-ID: <F175LyyUgJsRmuOE5th000107d2@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34834

I can not speak to the relative merits of "Snape hated his fellow DEs" 
versus "Snape was chummy with his fellow DEs until he turned." Both have 
potential, and merit, but I will agree that "Snape was chummy..." holds more 
intrigue for me. It *is* subversive, and that's what I like about it.

With regards to what we pull from canon, however, we must always remember 
that we're seeing things from the perspective of a pre-teen (eventually 
teenage) boy that doesn't get along with Snape in any way, and who has a DE 
target painted on the back of his head. We're going to see things from a 
somewhat skewed perspective, IMHO.

We've never seen Snape teach double Potions to the 2nd year Hufflepuffs and 
Ravenclaws. He may be just fine with them; it may well be that he's only 
sadistic to Gryffindors...or even only to those Gryffindors that are 
associated with Harry.

J

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com





From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Thu Feb  7 14:47:39 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 14:47:39 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's favoring the Slytherins
Message-ID: <F15DKfJyjAMBXuuTn8z000091fe@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34835

>From: "tanie_05" <tanie_05 at hotmail.com>
>>Neville- We don't know for certain, but other posts have
speculated.
>Now to this I have no clue whatsoever. I have been wondering myself. Why 
>mainly Neville?

I've been considering this. Two possibilities come to mind.

First, Neville is *hopeless* at Potions. Snape sees this as not only an 
affront to his most precious field of expertise, but as dangerous and 
unpleasant to deal with.

Second, Neville's parents were hit with the Cruciatus curse and driven into 
insanity by DEs loyal to LV after his fall. Could there be some lingering 
shame on Snape's part, that maybe he knew something that could have saved 
them?

J

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





From ftah3 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  7 14:52:40 2002
From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 14:52:40 -0000
Subject: Arthur and Lucius--What's in a name?
In-Reply-To: <a3thgh+gf7i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3u4bo+89vj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34836

gideoner4 wrote:
> In legends and facts concerning King Arthur, we can see that King 
> Lucius is involved. The war against Rome ended with King Arthur 
> killing King Lucius according to Thomas Malory's and Vulgate's 
> version. That brought me to the idea that Lucius Malfoy and Arthur 
> Weasley will come face to face each other in battle (which is very 
> very likely to happen), and Arthur might be the one to kill Lucius. 

I think it's possible.  It's also possible that the names signify not 
ultimate outcome of the relationship, but only the antagonistic 
relationship.  Arthur and Lucius were enemies in legend, and are in 
the book; it may go no further than that.  

> And I was also thinking about Percy (which is an English nickname 
for 
> old French Perceval or Percival). In King Arthur's legends/storeis, 
> Perceval was the frail and unexpected kingiht who sought the much 
> sought-after Holy Grail. Now, I think Percy could be candidate for 
an 
> unexpected hero (because a lot of people think he might even turn 
to 
> the Dark Side, and Percy is a rigid character, but I don't know 
what 
> could be the Holy Grail's equivalent in the books. I was just 
struck 
> by how Perceval was part of King Arthur's (stress on Arthur)
legends. 

I really like this theory.  Even without a Holy Grail, Percy as an 
unexpected hero would be a relief to me, because I'd be terribly 
bummed (though not surprised) if he turned out to be the weak link in 
his family.  

I've often wondered if, like Sibyl Trelawney, Percy's name wasn't a 
little tongue-in-cheek.  While Trelawney has, apparently, experienced 
a couple of real vision, two actual visions in an entire career don't 
seem to imply much of a Seer.  Percy acts all proper and knightly and 
important, in the spirit of Arthur's knight, but so far it's been 
more of a parody.  Perhaps Percy *will* seek a 'Holy Grail,' but it 
will be a false quest, a misguided quest which parodies Percival's 
quest for the Grail....

> WHy did J.K. Rowling cjoose to name Percy as that? Fred, George, 
> Bill, Ron, and Ginny (or any form of their names) aren't part of 
King 
> Arthur's legends.

Ginny could possibly align with Guinevere.

And though not part of the Arthurian legend, there is Saint George, 
dragonslayer and patron saint of England.  "William" is a name that 
figures a great deal in England's royal history; as does Charles, 
though if one wanted to reach further, Charlemagne.  There are a lot 
of famous "Freds" too.

Incidentally, Frederick Barbarossa & Charlemagne share something in 
common in legend ~ there was a so-called "Spear of Destiny," which, 
like the Holy Grail, was purported to have mystic powers from its 
association with the death of Christ.  It is said that both Frederick 
Barbarossa & Charlemagne possessed the Spear in their times, and were 
undefeated in battle until they lost it.

> I'll really appreciate your opinion over the whole matter over 
> Lucius, Arthur, and Percy's names. My friends and I can't help but 
> think that J.K. Rowling could have used the names for a reason. Or 
> maybe I am just reading too mucn into everything? Should I even 
think 
> of these things? Do you think it's worth analyzing, or does it 
sound 
> ludicrous? Please tell us what you think.

I think it's worth analysing, and I'm really intrigued by the 
Arthur/Lucius connection (I was unfamiliar with that one).  Though, I 
also think that while certain mythical character names suggest 
specific character types, it might sometimes be only the name that 
the author liked, or only the basic character traits, rather than the 
whole mythic destiny.

Mahoney




From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Thu Feb  7 15:04:45 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 15:04:45 -0000
Subject: The Cry of the Potter Junkie (filk)
Message-ID: <a3u52d+gpe7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34837

The Cry of the Potter Junkie  (Sung to the tune of Hedwig?s Theme from
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer?s Stone, the movie)
By Dicentra

It?s two years since first we read
Prodigious book number four.
It?s two years since Malfoy bounced about
A ferret upon the floor.

Two years since Moody?s magic eye,
Two years since the Dark Mark burned.
Two years since Parma and Patil
By Harry and Ron were spurned.

Did Snape become spy? Will Harry
Finally by love be hit?
And will we find out who?s more the jerk
The dog or the potions git?

Joanne Kath?leen please hurry up
We must have our Potter fix!
The movie helped but naught will beat
The Order of the Phoenix!





From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Thu Feb  7 15:19:44 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 15:19:44 -0000
Subject: The Cry of the Potter Junkie (filk) corrected punctuation
In-Reply-To: <a3u52d+gpe7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3u5ug+568l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34838

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" <bonnie at n...>
wrote:
> The Cry of the Potter Junkie  (Sung to the tune of Hedwig's Theme from
> Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, the movie)
> By Dicentra
> 
> It's two years since first we read
> Prodigious book number four.
> It's two years since Malfoy bounced about
> A ferret upon the floor.
> 
> Two years since Moody's magic eye,
> Two years since the Dark Mark burned.
> Two years since Parma and Patil
> By Harry and Ron were spurned.
> 
> Did Snape become spy? Will Harry
> Finally by love be hit?
> And will we find out who's more the jerk
> The dog or the potions git?
> 
> Joanne Kath'leen please hurry up
> We must have our Potter fix!
> The movie helped but naught will beat
> The Order of the Phoenix!




From cindysphynx at home.com  Thu Feb  7 15:36:09 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 15:36:09 -0000
Subject: LOLLIPOPS strikes back! (Dangerously Close To SHIPping)
In-Reply-To: <004201c1af92$33260420$e124ddcb@price>
Message-ID: <a3u6t9+5qde@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34839

I was going to respond to this, but I figured everyone was sick and 
tired of these endless Snape threads so . . . 

What's that you say?  You want more?  You can't get enough?  Well, 
all right, then:

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

Tabouli wrote:

> OBJECTION ONE: Too EWW to be TREWW (Marina, Cole, others)
> 
> As far as I can see, this objection is based on the view that 
>LOLLIPOPS can't be true because it's mushy and sickening, an 
>overused, trite plot device.  Pah, I say.  

AND 

 
> For another thing, why is Snape/Lily by definition mushy and 
>sickening anyway?  I can't speak for my entire crew, of course, but 
>in *MY* version of LOLLIPOPS there is absolutely no need for Snape 
>and Lily to have had a relationship at any point.  In fact, I think 
>this is very unlikely.  I say Snape had a huge, unrequited crush on 
>Lily (and since when are those mushy?  They're torturous and 
>humiliating!).

Speaking for myself, the core of my Ewwwww objection isn't just that 
I don't care for SHIPping, although that is part of it.  The bottom 
line is that Snape's schoolboy crush on a girl he never had makes 
Snape insufficiently Tough.  It is the sort of thing Hagrid would 
do.  Despite all of the quarrels I have with Snape, I've never said 
he lacks Toughness.  Does he flee when the Dark Mark burns on his 
arm?  No, he sucks it up and deals.  Does he flinch at returning to 
spying?  No, he sucks it up and deals.  If anything, Snape might even 
be *too* Tough, which explains his nasty treatment of the students.

In the face of all of that Toughness, enter LOLLIPOPS.  I'm now 
supposed to picture Snape shivering in his cold dungeon, with Lily's 
yellowing yearbook pictures tacked to the walls, the floor littered 
with crumpled photos of Lily that Snape secretly snapped with a 
telephoto lense, Lily's wedding photo on the bedside table with 
Snape's head pasted on James' body, a stack of scribbled and 
undelivered love letters in the desk drawer, and the ring he never 
screwed up the courage to give her?  Ewwwww!

For what it is worth, I think the theory actually works a little 
better if Snape and Lily really did have a little roll in the Devil's 
Snare.  At least Snape would be clinging to a memory of something 
that actually *happened*.

For that reason, I can buy a bit of LOLLIPOPS, but it doesn't make it 
all the way to becoming a significant part of the motivation for 
Snape to turn from the Death Eaters.

So, what to do, what to do?  As I find the LOLLIPOPS-Motivates-
Snape's-Conversion idea a bit flacid, maybe it needs a little shot of 
a Viagra-like substance.  Rather than have Snape turn from his Death 
Eater career over Love of Lily, let's bolster it a bit and make his 
motivation more compelling.  In other words, let's give him an extra 
reason to care about Lily besides a schoolboy crush.

How about this?  In this theory, Lily does something truly heroic to 
save Snape's life while they are at Hogwarts.  Um, perhaps Sirius, 
prankster that he is, is about to do some dastardly thing to Snape, 
like drag Snape in the shower and wash his greasy hair.  (Why, oh 
why, is Sirius always the heavy?)  Lily learns of this and, having 
figured out that Snape is half-dementor and will dissolve in water, 
intervenes and saves Snape's life.  And we know what happens when a 
wizard saves another wizard's life:  Snape is in her debt.  We can 
call it "Mercy II."  (Well, you're probably not buying the half-
dementor bit, so someone may have to help flesh this part out.)

Then Snape begins his career as a Death Eater (motivated primarily by 
Dumbledore's failure to take his side in The Prank).  He knows he'll 
never have Lily (and has decided to suck it up and deal), but he is 
still properly grateful and in her debt that she used her influence 
to save him from death.  [Insert elements of "Prince George" to show 
how Snape becomes increasingly disillusioned with his Death Eater 
career.]

All is well until Voldemort decides that the Potters have to go.  
Voldemort tells Snape to betray the Potters or kill them outright; 
Snape refuses; Cruciatus Curses follow.  And that is the moment when 
Snape decides to return to Dumbledore.  It is the combination of his 
debt to Lily and the fact that Voldemort is treating Snape badly.  
Forced to choose between Voldemort and Lily, Snape chooses Lily, not 
out of love, but out of debt.  

This has the added extra-special bonus of making Snape look strong 
and principled.  He starts to look like someone willing to honor his 
magical debts even at great personal cost and risk, and less like a 
demented Hollywood stalker.

Note--It really isn't necessary to have Lily play any role in Snape's 
conversion under Mercy II.  After all, canon already tells us that 
James saved Snape's life in The Prank.  That would be sufficient 
motivation by itself for Snape to refuse to betray the Potters.

Does that work, Captain Tabouli?

Cindy (crestfallen that Tabouli's LOLLIPOPS explanation did not 
contain the word "ambush")




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Thu Feb  7 16:17:34 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 16:17:34 -0000
Subject: Did Snape betray his friends? Round 2
In-Reply-To: <00a001c1af80$3b4c10c0$9d7c63d1@texas.net>
Message-ID: <a3u9au+gfmf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34840

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda" <editor at t...> wrote:
> "Cindy (unclear on how we will ever find out the truth about Snape's 
backstory given the limits of Harry's POV, given that Sirius is 
clueless, and Dumbledore is tight-lipped)."
> 
> ------->I have visions of Harry ending up in Snape's chambers 
somehow (he's been in his office) and spotting something odd or 
noteworthy that is later explained, by someone who would have said 
nothing if unasked. Does that make sense?
> 
> --Amanda

Finds a picture of Lily with flowers in front of it?

/me begins to laugh hysterically. 

Eileen




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Thu Feb  7 16:30:34 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 16:30:34 -0000
Subject: The Marauder's Map, Again (was: Re: Snape knew about the passageway)
In-Reply-To: <f05010402b887a074cfa6@[66.32.49.163]>
Message-ID: <a3ua3a+6hog@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34841

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

> 1) Presumably the Chamber and its waterslide passageway are _not_ on 
> the Map.  (If they were, Gred and Forge would have known about them 
> during the events of CoS.)  What would someone watching the Map see 
> when someone entered the passage behind the sink?  Would they simply 
> "fall off" the Map, or would their dot hover uncomfortably in 
Moaning 
> Myrtle's bathroom?  If the latter, it must have been awfully crowded 
> in there (on the map) during the book's climax.

I would imagine they fall off the map. Otherwide, Gred and Forge would 
have had the entire faculty in Moaning Myrtle's bathroom immediately 
to find Ginny, even if it meant giving up their map. I'm sure the 
first thing they did when shedisappeared was check the map. 

> 2) Would Riddle have ever appeared on the map?  Ghosts do (at least, 
> Peeves does) - is the "spirit" in the book strong enough to show up?

First of all, when the book isn't in use, there'd be no question of 
him showing up. But even when he and Ginny are writing in it, I think 
that he was still a book. When Harry meets him first, he falls into 
the book, Riddle doesn't come out. In the Chamber of Secrets, though, 
I think the Map would have picked up Riddle, had the Chamber had been 
on the Map. 

> 3) Did Voldemort appear on the map when he was riding Quirrell's 
> skull?  I assume not, since I can't think of a reason for the Twins 
> to not use the map during that year - but why not?  How foolable is 
> the map?

Voldemort isn't there in the ordinary sense of things. Perhaps, you 
must have a bodily manifestation to be detected. Just being the back 
of Quirrel's Head (ugghhh) doesn't give you that separate 
manifestation. However, people in invisibility cloaks do have bodies, 
and ghosts have manifestations of bodies.

> I can't find any evidence in the books for any of these.  None of 
> them are plotbreakers - the Twins just might not be very observant, 
> just like they never happenned to look for Scabbers on the map.  But 
> I still wonder . . .

Scabbers I find the strangest. But......

Someone needs to go through canon and find every reference to the 
Marauders' Map. Then, we might be able to discover the rules (or lack 
of rules) by which it operates. For one thing, does it automatically 
name people, or does it only give names to people you know? I thought 
the first, but the second would be much more convenient. :-) 

And, why doesn't Dumbledore get one?

Eileen

PS Theories that the twins now have a copy are ill-advised, I think, 
since they could hardly have missed that Mad-Eyed Moody was Bartemius 
Crouch. But then, they missed Pettrigrew. Not too bright, those two, 
perhaps. 




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Thu Feb  7 16:40:17 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 16:40:17 -0000
Subject: the Crouch Family
In-Reply-To: <a3ti5u+u4st@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3ualh+r9s6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34842

Ok, a while ago, the discussion on this thread concerned Crouch Sr. 
helping Crouch Jr. get out fo Azkaban.  It was pointed out that after 
his rescue, Crouch Jr. spent 12 or so years in hiding, under the 
Imperiatus Curse, with no one but Winky to talk to.  Some people (I 
forget who) said it seemed like his dad hadn't done him any favors and 
maybe Crouch Jr. would have been better off just dying in Azkaban.  It 
was also pointed out that Crouch Sr. never seemed to love his son, and 
perhaps didn't care if Junior suffered or not.

I think we should cut Crouch Sr. a break.  At the time he rescued 
his son, he didn't know that Junior was going to obsessively search 
for a way to return Voldemort to power.  Perhaps Crouch Sr. thought 
that Junior had just fallen in with a bad crowd.  Maybe he thought 
that Junior would be able to start his life over again, in another 
country. (Perhaps Junior inherited his father's amazing ability with 
languages -- it said in the books that Crouch Sr. spoke over 150 
languages.)   But, when Junior showed his undying devotion to the Dark 
Lord, his dad had no choice but to put him under Imperio to keep him 
from helping Voldemort. 

Also, Junior said his dad rescued him out of love for Mrs. Crouch, who 
*did* her son.  So, Crouch Sr.'s rescue of his son was done out of 
love (albeit love of his wife, not son), rather than out of a desire 
to prolong his son's suffering. 




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Feb  7 16:42:24 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 16:42:24 -0000
Subject: LOLLIPOPS strikes back!
In-Reply-To: <004201c1af92$33260420$e124ddcb@price>
Message-ID: <a3uapg+9jbf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34843

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> wrote:

> OBJECTION ONE: Too EWW to be TREWW (Marina, Cole, others)
> 
> As far as I can see, this objection is based on the view that
LOLLIPOPS can't be true because it's mushy and sickening, an overused,
trite plot device.  Pah, I say.  What sort of an argument is that?
> 

Not so much that it *can't* be true (if JKR decides to make it true,
then true it will be), but that I don't wont it to be true.  I'll be
disappointed if it turns out to be true.

> For a start, let's have a bit more faith in JKR, shall we?  She has,
thus far, managed to negotiate Harry being Saved By Mother's Love, his
crush on Cho, the Yule Ball, Ginny's crush and various high school
romances without descending into Sickly City.

The romantic elements so far (we might also include Hagrid and Madam
Maxine) have been minor side bits; none of them have been presented as
the driving force behind a character's life-changing,
character-defining decision.  Also, the characters involved have all
been already presented to us as nice folks capable of sentimental
feelings, so adding another bit of warm fuzzies to them doesn't really
change anything.  Adding it to Snape, however, would be like putting a
single pink flamingo in the middle of a Gothic cathedral.

And I never really bought the whole "Harry was safed by Lily's love"
bit; I think it's an incomplete explanation at best.  Voldemort was
wiping out families left and right at the time -- are we supposed to
believe that Lily was the only parent who ever tried to sacrifice
herself to safe her child?  Or that all those other poor, murdered
parents didn't love their children as much as Lily loved Harry?  I
don't buy it for a moment.  There's something else there, and we're
going to find out what it is.

<snip discussion about Love of Lily not being the sole motivator for
Snape's actions>

> The "great personal cost" and incredible deed he did to convince D
of his loyalty don't have to be anything which directly concerns Lily,
as anti-LOLLIPOPS types seem to assume, though if one buys the
LOLLIPOPS argument there's probably some connection.  Nor does his
loyalty to Dumbledore fourteen years after Lily's death... after all,
Dumbledore showed him Mercy and accepted him back into the Good Side
after being a Death Eater... surely this is a major thing worthy of
loyalty: the memory of Lily doesn't have to be the *only* motivator! 
There's almost certainly a lot more to the Snape Story that we just
don't know enough about at this point to theorise on.

That's certainly true, but if Lily-love is just one motivating factor
among many, then my instinct is to drop the romantic angle and let all
these other factors pull the weight.

There's also a timing problem: Snape was a spy for some time before
James and Lily died, so for a threat to Lily's life to become a
motivator for Snape changing sides, there would have to be a lengthy
gap between Voldemort deciding to kill the Potters and actually doing
it.  And I don't see why there would be such a gap.  Which is too bad,
'cause otherwise I might get George to go for Cindy's suggestion that
it was the threat to *James* that led Snape to turn, because of the
life-debt between them.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com






From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Thu Feb  7 17:20:26 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 17:20:26 -0000
Subject: Richard III and Voldemort (Re: al gore/harry potter buttons)
In-Reply-To: <8rl008+ft12@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3ud0q+q279@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34844

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ht " <hilary_tamar at h...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at e..., "Caius Marcius" <coriolan at w...> 
> wrote:
> > There is, as JKR has shown us, a world elsewhere. 
> > 
> As someone who bought the British versions of the HP books while in 
> Stratford ON for the festival, I quite agree!
> 
> Apropos of nothing, did anyone else quite think "Of course! Richard 
> III!" while reading the scene in GoF where the shadows of the people 
> Voldemort had killed come out of his wand and circle Harry and 
> Voldemort, whispering encouragement to Harry and G_d-knows-what to 
> Voldemort?
> 

I thought Richard III so hard that I thought I posted to the list 
about it, but perhaps I didn't. I try to tell everyone I know about 
it, but most of them haven't read or seen Richard III and they look at 
me with glazed eyes. 

BTW, I hope we see a little bit more of evil charm. Tom Riddle 
mentioned that he had been always able to charm people, but his 
current manifestation is less than charming. Then, again Richard 
wasn't the handsomest character around.

Eileen

PS. /me who is devoted to proving that the real Richard III did not 
kill his nephews, but is fascinated by Shakespeare's Richard. 




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Thu Feb  7 17:26:13 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 17:26:13 -0000
Subject: Ravenclaws, Search Feature, Voldy in History, First Love,
In-Reply-To: <39DE083E.474EA004@swbell.net>
Message-ID: <a3udbl+gsva@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34845

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> 
wrote:
regarding:
> > Why isn't the rise of Voldemort tackled as an important historical 
topic in its
> > own right?
> >
> I wonder if it might be because of the general fear of uttering his 
name & all
> that.  Maybe covering him & his reign of terror in History of Magic 
would be too
> "frightening" for the students (and the teacher).  I like the 
suggestion that
> maybe it gets covered in later yrs of that subject. 

I took International Baccalaureate History (snobby program developed 
in Europe :-), and they have a policy that anything that happens in 
the last 10 years ain't history. (well, not for their purposes.) My 
Dad holds the view that 20 years would even be better for high school 
purposes. Something like this may be in place at Hogwarts.

Eileen

PS. The ten year waiting period always cracked us up. "The Berlin Wall 
has now happened!" and such jokes. 




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Thu Feb  7 17:25:47 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 17:25:47 -0000
Subject: the Crouch Family -- An Embarassing Correction
In-Reply-To: <a3ualh+r9s6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3udar+mst1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34846

In my last post, I said:

> Also, Junior said his dad rescued him out of love for Mrs. Crouch, 
> who *did* her son.  So, Crouch Sr.'s rescue of his son was done out 
> of love....

Before we get into any long discusions of Barty Jr.'s oedipal complex, 
let me say that was a typo.  I intended to say that Mrs. Crouch *did 
love* her son, not that she *did* her son.  I meant "love" in the 
maternal sense, of course. 

(Sheesh!  I said Mrs. Crouch "did" her son, right after Cindy 
speculates on whether Snape ever "had" Lily.  What is this list coming 
to?!) 

-- Judy




From jmmears at prodigy.net  Thu Feb  7 17:51:16 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 17:51:16 -0000
Subject: LOLLIPOPS strikes back!
In-Reply-To: <004201c1af92$33260420$e124ddcb@price>
Message-ID: <a3ueqk+stdc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34847

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> wrote:


> For another thing, why is Snape/Lily by definition mushy and 
sickening anyway?  I can't speak for my entire crew, of course, but 
in *MY* version of LOLLIPOPS there is absolutely no need for Snape 
and Lily to have had a relationship at any point.  In fact, I think 
this is very unlikely.  I say Snape had a huge, unrequited crush on 
Lily (and since when are those mushy?  They're torturous and 
humiliating!).
 that scenario more likely than that 
> 

? <> It may be just me, but I think the sort of boy Snape would have 
been (victimised, resentful, insecure, bitter, long-term grudge 
bearing) is a perfect candidate for putting the first pretty girl 
who is kind to him on a pedestal and hanging on to a monster 
unrequited crush for years.  She can do no wrong.  I *know* men like 
that!  In my experience there is definitely a type of man who never 
falls out of love with his first love, regardless of whether she 
dies or marries (or *he* marries) or commits some terrible crime or 
goes overseas for ten years.


Ok, Tabouli, you win.  I'm horribly prone to seasickness and as a 
result steadfastly avoid ships like the plague, but I can't find 
anything in canon or even suggested by canon to undermine this 
theory.  In fact, it's the only truly plausible scenario I've seen 
to explain Snapes extreme hatred for James.  The werewolf prank and 
James quidditch skills just never satisfied me as justification for 
Snapes extreme hatred of James.  I never bought the notion that 
James & co. made a point of tormenting Snape at school and in fact, 
canon suggests that it was Snape who was constantly bothering them 
(trying to find up what they were up to, trying to get them 
expelled, etc).
You are right about there being a type of teenage boy/man who would 
be inclined to fall hopelessly in love with a girl who had 
absolutely no interest in him, just because she made some sort of 
kind gesture on his behalf (particularly if no other girl ever 
showed any interest in him).  It happens all the time.
The best part of the LOLLIPOPS theory for me is that it allows me to 
still find Snape repulsive in terms of his personality, and explain 
his (not really all that noble) decision to abandon Voldy and work 
for Dumbledore.

Bring on the dramamine!

Jo Serenadust, who is hoping for a quiet cabin near the center of 
the ship






From cindysphynx at home.com  Thu Feb  7 18:59:47 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 18:59:47 -0000
Subject: LOLLIPOPS strikes back! & Timeline
In-Reply-To: <a3uapg+9jbf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3uir3+qk9a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34848

Marina wrote:

> There's also a timing problem: Snape was a spy for some time before
> James and Lily died, so for a threat to Lily's life to become a
> motivator for Snape changing sides, there would have to be a lengthy
> gap between Voldemort deciding to kill the Potters and actually 
doing
> it.  And I don't see why there would be such a gap.  


I don't think the timing presents a problem for LOLLIPOPS or for, uh, 
Mercy II (James or Lily version).  According to the Lexicon, MWPP and 
Snape leave Hogwarts in 1978.  Peter starts spying in 1979.  Harry is 
born in 1980.  The Fidelius Charm is performed one week before the 
Potters die in October 1981.

It seems to me that Snape can be a Death Eater from the moment he 
leaves Hogwarts (1978) until Harry's birth (1980).  Harry's birth is 
when Voldemort focuses and decides he must kill Harry.  Peter, as a 
friend of James and Lily, tells Voldemort of Harry's birth right 
away.  Peter is trying to get the goods on the Potters, but is 
getting nowhere.  

Voldemort turns to Snape, who has been a Death Eater for 2 years.  
Snape initially balks at betraying the Potters, gets tortured, 
disingenuously promises to help Voldemort kill the Potters, turns to 
Dumbledore, and starts spying for Dumbledore in Summer 1980.  He 
spies until Voldemort falls in Fall 1981, giving Snape a good 15-
months of spying for Dumbledore.  

The gap between Snape's conversion and the Potters' deaths makes 
sense -- Voldemort's only genuine source of information about the 
Potters is Peter, talentless wizard that he is.  Snape, in the 
meantime, is just pretending to look for the Potters, when in fact 
Snape isn't even trying to find and kill the Potters because he is 
spying for Dumbledore.

This also strikes me as compelling because it helps explain the kind 
of risk Snape faced.  Snape is pretending to look for the Potters, 
claiming he is going to kill them when he finds them.  Voldemort is 
buying this.  Should Voldemort locate the Potters and should Snape 
refuse to pull the trigger, Snape would be instantly killed himself.  
So he really was in a great deal of danger by participating in this 
ruse.  

As for the post GoF world, Snape's mission is to return to Voldemort 
as Dumbledore's spy and pretend to finish the job of killing Harry.  
This explains the long look Snape gives Harry at the end of GoF.  
Snape is *really* in danger now, because as a Hogwarts professor, 
Snape has to think up all kinds of plausible reasons why he can't 
deliver Harry to Voldemort.

Note that the timeline of the capture of certain Death Eaters 
dovetails nicely with this timeline theory of Snape's conversion.  
Snape converted in Summer 1980 when Harry is born.  According to the 
Lexicon, the following events also occurred in 1980:  Karkarov, 
Rosier, Wilkes and Dolohov (some of Snape's Slytherin friends) are 
all captured or killed.  Dolohov was "caught shortly after 
[Karkaroff]."  Rosier was "caught shortly after [Karkaroff]."  
Coincidence?  I think not.  Ambush?  Yup.

The timeline also raises the possibility that Snape recruited Peter 
into the Death Eaters in 1979.  You know, Snape would have told Peter 
things like Sirius and James never respected you, you are always 
second fiddle with them, join us, you can be a star on our team, 
blah, blah, blah.  I can't make it work (yet) because I can't think 
of any plausible way Snape knows that Peter is a Death Eater, doesn't 
tell Dumbledore, and lets James, Lily and Sirius switch to Peter.  
The only thing that comes to mind is that Snape doesn't want to admit 
to Dumbledore his role in recruiting Peter (much the way Lupin 
refuses to admit the werewolf adventures to Dumbledore), but I'm not 
sold.

Marina again:

>Which is too bad,
> 'cause otherwise I might get George to go for Cindy's suggestion 
that
> it was the threat to *James* that led Snape to turn, because of the
> life-debt between them.

Yes, I think I'll go with the James threat as Snape's primary 
motivation.  ::gives George a 'come hither' look::

Cindy (going on record to agree with Judy that Mrs. Crouch never 
*did* her son)




From catalyna_99 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  7 18:04:01 2002
From: catalyna_99 at yahoo.com (catalyna_99)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 18:04:01 -0000
Subject: The Marauder's Map, Again (was: Re: Snape knew about the passageway)
In-Reply-To: <a3ua3a+6hog@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3ufih+uqd4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34849

 Okay, newbie here finally coming out of lurking for first posting.

Eileen wrote:

> > 
> > I would imagine they fall off the map. Otherwide,
> > Gred and Forge would 
> > have had the entire faculty in Moaning Myrtle's
> > bathroom immediately 
> > to find Ginny, even if it meant giving up their map.
> > I'm sure the 
> > first thing they did when shedisappeared was check
> > the map. 
> 
 As to the Marauders Map... I think it only shows what the 
Manufacturers knew were on the grounds...They found the secret 
tunnels, so they were able to put them in... They didn't know about 
the whereabouts of the CoS so it was left off.  (which means they were
 definitely active during their years at Hogwarts!) 

Eileen wrote:

> Chamber of
> > Secrets, though, 
> > I think the Map would have picked up Riddle, had the
> > Chamber had been 
> > on the Map. 
> > Voldemort isn't there in the ordinary sense of
> > things. Perhaps, you 
> > must have a bodily manifestation to be detected.
> > Just being the back 
> > of Quirrel's Head (ugghhh) doesn't give you that
> > separate 
> > manifestation. However, people in invisibility
> > cloaks do have bodies, 
> > and ghosts have manifestations of bodies.

But if the map showed Voldemart as Riddle would they
 be able to put it together? Would they even care? 
 Same with Pettigrew... would the twins know every
 pupil in the school?  When they were using the map
 they were using it for mischief... Looking for
 passageways clear of teachers, or anyone else... Not
 necessarily using it to spy. If they saw the names
 they didn't recognize in the corridors it probably
 would be, "Who's Pettigrew?"  "I think he's the snotty
 first year at Hufflepuff's.  Always sits near
 Diggory."  "No, don't think so..." "Who cares, he's
 out of the corridor now..."
 
Eileen wrote:

> > And, why doesn't Dumbledore get one?
> 
 Just one of the mysteries of Dumbledore... He seems to
 know a lot what is going on, but doesn't let out what
 he knows.
>  
Eileen wrote:

> > PS Theories that the twins now have a copy are
> > ill-advised, I think, 
> > since they could hardly have missed that Mad-Eyed
> > Moody was Bartemius 
> > Crouch. But then, they missed Pettrigrew. Not too
> > bright, those two, 
> > perhaps. 
> > 

 I think they would have made a copy, but then, they
 may have decided sneaking around in night is kid-stuff
 and they are now into the more serious business of
 their joke shop items.  I don't think they're not
 bright, but it's tunnel vision when it comes to their
 own fun and causes.
 
"catalyna_99"




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Feb  7 19:31:09 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 19:31:09 -0000
Subject: LOLLIPOPS strikes back! & Timeline
In-Reply-To: <a3uir3+qk9a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3uklt+j957@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34850

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

> I don't think the timing presents a problem for LOLLIPOPS or for,
uh, 
> Mercy II (James or Lily version).  According to the Lexicon, MWPP
and 
> Snape leave Hogwarts in 1978.  Peter starts spying in 1979.  Harry
is 
> born in 1980.  The Fidelius Charm is performed one week before the 
> Potters die in October 1981.

<snip very convincing discussion of timeline>

> Marina again:
> 
> >Which is too bad,
> > 'cause otherwise I might get George to go for Cindy's suggestion 
> that
> > it was the threat to *James* that led Snape to turn, because of
the
> > life-debt between them.
> 
> Yes, I think I'll go with the James threat as Snape's primary 
> motivation.  ::gives George a 'come hither' look::

George is helpless to resist.  He is smitten.  He know maintains that
Snape's gradual disillusionment with the DEs finally culminated in
active resistance when Voldemort threatened James.

This theory also has the advantage of letting me leave Lily completely
out of this particular equation, thus saving George from having to
board any ships.

Marina (still not buying the "Snape recruited Peter" notion one bit)
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From ftah3 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  7 19:57:45 2002
From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 19:57:45 -0000
Subject: LOLLIPOPS strikes back! & Timeline
In-Reply-To: <a3uir3+qk9a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3um7p+ccjd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34851

cindysphynx wrote:
> This also strikes me as compelling because it helps explain the 
kind 
> of risk Snape faced.  Snape is pretending to look for the Potters, 
> claiming he is going to kill them when he finds them.  Voldemort is 
> buying this.  Should Voldemort locate the Potters and should Snape 
> refuse to pull the trigger, Snape would be instantly killed 
himself.  
> So he really was in a great deal of danger by participating in this 
> ruse.  

Question, and I probably just need a memory refresh as I haven't been 
back through the books in a little while: Do we know that he did any 
more than simply give a heads-up when anything came down the pike? 
And do we know that his spying had anything at all to do with the 
Potters, or that Voldemort ever directed Snape to do something 
personally against the Potters?  (And as for that last question, I 
don't recall anything specified in terms of his interaction with 
Voldemort concerning the Potters at all, and I wonder if the 
popularity of that theory has barred the way against other simpler or 
more interesting possibilities.)  

As for danger, do we know he actually faced *great* danger?  
Certainly, when it comes to betraying a powerful megalomaniac like 
Voldy, any little thing could cost Snape his life.  But if Voldy, at 
the end of GoF, *was* referring to Snape when he mentioned the 
follower who had left the fold never to return and therefore would be 
killed.  ...that doesn't sound like Voldy is feeling a sense of high 
treason, does it?  It seems to me that if Snape had really done more 
of significance in his spying than turn over other DEs (which, in the 
end, others did in order to cover their own butts, and yet were 
accepted back into the fold), such as *not* follow through on some 
plan to kill the Potters (which led to Voldy's downfall), or even 
pass other significant information to the Good Guys, Voldy wouldn't 
be essentially shrugging off Snape's apparently unarguable exit from 
the DEs.

Right, I'm now going to stop and recognize that one possiblity is 
that Voldy doesn't know the extent of Snape's betrayal.  For some 
reason, I just want to say fie on that.  I think that Voldy views 
Snape as a little fish because at least in the past he *was* a little 
fish.  Mainly because I think that if Snape had done some huge grand 
thing to try to save the Potters, it would have come up by now. In 
the Shrieking Shack, Snape would have had *more* history with which 
to berate Harry than simply 'you're just as inconsiderate as your 
father, who tried to kill me in high school.'  And if it hasn't come 
up because it's a big secret and Dumbledore et al didn't want to let 
it out in case Voldy came back or Snape was called upon again to do 
some spying, why on earth *didn't* Snape respond to the dark mark 
call at the end of GoF?  If he *didn't* want the Death Eaters/Voldy 
to clue in that he was firmly entwined, either by sensibility or by 
having perpetrated worse betrayal in the past, with the Good Guys, he 
should have gone, imho.

As for changing sides back in the Death Eater days, why does he need 
to have had some enormous revelation requiring something like 
unrequited love/attachment to Lily Potter?  Why not...'you know, 
racist freaks who murder Muggles and wizards and are plotting World 
Domination really ain't my kinda people.  I think I'll defect.'  
Imho, it says more for Snape's being a good man at his core that he 
would make a moral decision of that sort without needing to justify 
by selfish motives.  Petty and mean he may be on an everyday basis, 
but when it comes to the *big* stuff, you don't have to bribe him 
with the object of his obsession to do the right thing, you know?  
(Which is, other than the whole 'trite!' complaint, my main reason 
for not caring for the lollipop theory.)

> As for the post GoF world, Snape's mission is to return to 
Voldemort 
> as Dumbledore's spy and pretend to finish the job of killing 
Harry.  
> This explains the long look Snape gives Harry at the end of GoF.  
> Snape is *really* in danger now, because as a Hogwarts professor, 
> Snape has to think up all kinds of plausible reasons why he can't 
> deliver Harry to Voldemort.

If Snape's mission is to reinfiltrate Voldy's group, then he's in 
danger simply by appearing to have left the group by not coming when 
called.  How do you explain to a guy who brooks absolutely no dissent 
and expects immediate action when he says 'jump!' that you thought it 
would be safer, or smarter, or sneakier, etc. to not come when 
called?  Basically, you explain and then wonder if your sentence will 
be just pain, or death.

And if Snape would likely be expected to deliver Harry asap, and it 
was something he'd failed to do before, *and* it could be reasonably 
assumed that Snape has incurred Voldy's suspicion by not appearing at 
the dark mark call, I would think that sending Snape back in now 
would be the *last* thing Dumby would do, because it would be 
tantamount to a death sentence.

>I can't make it work (yet) because I can't think 
> of any plausible way Snape knows that Peter is a Death Eater, 
doesn't 
> tell Dumbledore, and lets James, Lily and Sirius switch to Peter.  
> The only thing that comes to mind is that Snape doesn't want to 
admit 
> to Dumbledore his role in recruiting Peter (much the way Lupin 
> refuses to admit the werewolf adventures to Dumbledore), but I'm 
not 
> sold.

Not sold over here, either, simply because I don't think Snape is 
that much of an ingrate, and because I doubt that Dumbledore would 
have overlooked such a *huge* selfishly-motivated lapse.  

Marinafrants:
> >Which is too bad,
> > 'cause otherwise I might get George to go for Cindy's suggestion 
> that
> > it was the threat to *James* that led Snape to turn, because of 
the
> > life-debt between them.

I don't think it was James, I don't think it was Lily.  I think it 
was Snape.  A Snape who can be ill-tempered, nasty, and narrow-
minded, but who in the end has a strong enough moral core to see the 
error in aligning himself with murdering, racist jerks, and enough 
strength of will to risk his life for nothing more than simple moral 
principle by defecting and spying for the good guys.

Loving the interpretive character analysis,
Mahoney 




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Thu Feb  7 19:59:08 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 19:59:08 -0000
Subject: The Marauder's Map, Again (was: Re: Snape knew about the passageway)
In-Reply-To: <a3ufih+uqd4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3umac+d88n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34852

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catalyna_99" <catalyna_99 at y...> wrote:
> Same with Pettigrew... would the twins know every
>  pupil in the school?  When they were using the map
>  they were using it for mischief... Looking for
>  passageways clear of teachers, or anyone else... Not
>  necessarily using it to spy. If they saw the names
>  they didn't recognize in the corridors it probably
>  would be, "Who's Pettigrew?"  "I think he's the snotty
>  first year at Hufflepuff's.  Always sits near
>  Diggory."  "No, don't think so..." "Who cares, he's
>  out of the corridor now..."

Possibly, but the conversation could take more sickening terms. "Who's 
this Pettigrew in bed with Ron?" "I think she's that snotty first 
year at Hufflepuff's. Always sits near Ernie MacMillan." "No I don't 
think so..." "But the point is, what are she and Ron doing?"

/me blushes horribly, and decides that the map must somehow NOT show 
the common rooms and dormitories. 

Eileen




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Feb  7 20:23:59 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 20:23:59 -0000
Subject: LOLLIPOPS strikes back! & Timeline
In-Reply-To: <a3um7p+ccjd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3unov+v0fh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34853

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ftah3" <ftah3 at y...> wrote:

> Question, and I probably just need a memory refresh as I haven't
been 
> back through the books in a little while: Do we know that he did any 
> more than simply give a heads-up when anything came down the pike? 
> And do we know that his spying had anything at all to do with the 
> Potters, or that Voldemort ever directed Snape to do something 
> personally against the Potters?  

Nope, we don't know.  Canonically, all we know about Snape's spying
career was that it existed.  It's tempting to connect it to the
Potters because, well, everything in the books seems to connect to the
Potters in one way or another.  A Potter is the protagonist of the
series, after all, and the mystery of what happened the night James
and Lily dies seems to be the central point of the overall story arc. 
But if anyone comes up with a really fascinating non-Potter-related
theory about what Snape got up to during his spying days, George and I
are willing to listen.


> As for danger, do we know he actually faced *great* danger?  

Dumbledore specifically used the words "at great personal risk."  Was
he aware of specific risks that Snape took, or was he just working on
the assumption that anyone spying on Voldy had to be in big-time
danger by definition?  I don't know.

> Certainly, when it comes to betraying a powerful megalomaniac like 
> Voldy, any little thing could cost Snape his life.  But if Voldy, at 
> the end of GoF, *was* referring to Snape when he mentioned the 
> follower who had left the fold never to return and therefore would
be 
> killed.  ...that doesn't sound like Voldy is feeling a sense of high 
> treason, does it?  

Well, considering Voldy is intending to kill the person in question, I
expect he's feeling a sense of high *something*, even if it's only a
high dudgeon.  Salying "this guy left, so I'm going to track him down
and kill him" doesn't strike me  as "shrugging it off."  I suppose one
could argue that Voldy is being kind of mellow because he's not saying
"this guy left the fold, so I'm gonna Crucio him for a week before I
kill him," but maybe that's just taken as a given.


> As for changing sides back in the Death Eater days, why does he need 
> to have had some enormous revelation requiring something like 
> unrequited love/attachment to Lily Potter?  Why not...'you know, 
> racist freaks who murder Muggles and wizards and are plotting World 
> Domination really ain't my kinda people.  I think I'll defect.'  

Hah! Looks like George made another frend!

> Imho, it says more for Snape's being a good man at his core that he 
> would make a moral decision of that sort without needing to justify 
> by selfish motives.  Petty and mean he may be on an everyday basis, 
> but when it comes to the *big* stuff, you don't have to bribe him 
> with the object of his obsession to do the right thing, you know? 

Yep, my sentiments exactly.
 

> I don't think it was James, I don't think it was Lily.  I think it 
> was Snape.  A Snape who can be ill-tempered, nasty, and narrow-
> minded, but who in the end has a strong enough moral core to see the 
> error in aligning himself with murdering, racist jerks, and enough 
> strength of will to risk his life for nothing more than simple moral 
> principle by defecting and spying for the good guys.

Wow, you're even out-Georging George here!  I think it could be James
mainly because of the "everything revolves around the Potters"
argument I made above, but it doesn't have to be.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Thu Feb  7 20:52:03 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 20:52:03 -0000
Subject: LOLLIPOPS strikes back! & Timeline
In-Reply-To: <a3um7p+ccjd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3updj+4sg6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34854

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ftah3" <ftah3 at y...> wrote:

> Right, I'm now going to stop and recognize that one possiblity is 
> that Voldy doesn't know the extent of Snape's betrayal.  For some 
> reason, I just want to say fie on that.  I think that Voldy views 
> Snape as a little fish because at least in the past he *was* a little 
> fish.  

How do we know he was a little fish?  It seems to me that you don't
get one of those tattoos by being a little fish.  Voldie has lots of
supporters beyond his circle--I'm guessing only his favorites carry
the Dark Mark.

And if it hasn't come 
> up because it's a big secret and Dumbledore et al. didn't want to let 
> it out in case Voldy came back or Snape was called upon again to do 
> some spying, why on earth *didn't* Snape respond to the dark mark 
> call at the end of GoF?  If he *didn't* want the Death Eaters/Voldy 
> to clue in that he was firmly entwined, either by sensibility or by 
> having perpetrated worse betrayal in the past, with the Good Guys, he 
> should have gone, imho.

Voldemort issued the call while everyone at Hogwarts was in the
Quidditch stadium, waiting for Harry et al. to come out of the maze. 
Snape couldn't just Disapparate (physically impossible) nor could he
run off Hogwarts grounds without being noticed.  Maybe he was waiting
for orders from Dumbledore.  It wouldn't be hard for him to go back to
Voldie and say that he couldn't return at that exact moment because it
would compromise his position at the school, something Voldie would no
doubt want to preserve (assuming Snape is pretending to spy for Voldie).  
>  
> > As for the post GoF world, Snape's mission is to return to 
> Voldemort 
> > as Dumbledore's spy and pretend to finish the job of killing 
> Harry.  
> > This explains the long look Snape gives Harry at the end of GoF.  

I won't be surprised if much of the action in OoP hangs off what this
look means.  Me, it gives the heebie jeebies.  Harry didn't know how
to interpret it at the time, but I bet he finds out and wishes he hadn't.

--Dicentra, trying not to pee her pants in anticipation of OoP 
 





From huntleyl at mssm.org  Thu Feb  7 21:10:27 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 16:10:27 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Where's the Canon? (Part Two) and Richard III
References: <a3smft+ajf5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003901c1b01b$ddb4be20$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 34855

Elkins Said:

>>>I agree that right now, this does indeed seem to be the case.  Ever since my experience with my "subversive" Snape-the-Recanted-Voldie-Supporter theory, though, I've been decidedly leery about writing off JKR's apparent moral simplicity too quickly.  It seems possible to me that the series might continue its forward motion into the realms of moral ambiguity, in which case this aspect of canonical suggestion might well start to shift even further than it already has away from Slyth=Evil.  Only time will tell.>>>

    I have always attributed this "forward motion" as a result of the fact that the story, for the most part, is told from Harry's POV.  Youngsters tend to have relatively "simple" views of the world around them.  Black and White, Good and Evil, that sort of thing.  The younger, more immature, less educated you are, etc. - the less likely you are to be able to recognize the gray areas and differentiate between them.  A case in point is the fact that Hermione (whom I believe to be an exceptionally bright/mature/knowledge-seeking kid) is far less likely (especially in the later books) to automatically suspect Snape of, well, anything, than Harry or Ron.  So, it is entirely natural then, that as Harry matures and gains knowledge and experience, the books will mirror his metamorphosing state of mind.  Therefore, as Harry gains the ability to recognize moral ambiguity, we will see more of it in the books as well.

laura

P.S.  Tell me about this Richard III connection, please..Eileen, someone?  I really need to read more Shakespeare. :(

[Mod Note: Remember, folks, if the Richard III connection seems like it's going OT, take it to OTChatter ;) --JW]




From theennead at attbi.com  Thu Feb  7 21:30:38 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 21:30:38 -0000
Subject: In defense of Hermione and Neville (Ron as Sirius and Neville as Peter)
In-Reply-To: <854D5016-18F7-11D6-8AC4-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a3urm2+8q7k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34856

Speculation on whether Hermione or Neville might ever betray Harry 
and the Cause...

In response to Barb's defense of Hermione, Meglet wrote:

> She doesn't have as much insight into herself as she does into
> others.? (A real blind spot with Gilderoy Lockhart, don't you
> think?)? 

I also feel the need to jump to Hermione's defense here.  Porphyria's 
already pointed out that the girl was only twelve years old at the 
time, and also that even many mature and experienced witches were 
captivated by Lockhart.

To this, I'd also add that Hermione's crush on Lockhart did *not*
affect her behavior in any way that had the slightest bit of bearing 
on her devotion to Harry and his cause.  So she sent him a valentine.
She blushed when he praised her in class.  She wanted to keep his 
autograph.  Who cares?

When the Trio realize that they need a teacher's signature to get the 
potions book out of the Restricted Section of the library and come to 
the conclusion that Lockhart's the only professor dumb enough to sign 
such a thing for them, Hermione doesn't object at all.  She doesn't 
try to defend Lockhart's intellect -- she knows full well, I think, 
that the man is a moron -- or worry that the ploy might get her poor 
dear Gilderoy in trouble.  She doesn't balk at using him.  

No, she's the one who actually carries *out* the plan -- and she does 
so by shamelessly flattering Lockhart, playing up to his ego to 
distract him from thinking too much about what he's being asked to 
sign.

Hermione had a little crush on him, sure.  But it was hardly a 
*blind* crush, and it didn't prevent her from acting against him.

> She also has shown a tendency to keep important information
> to herself (the Time Turner, Lupin being a werewolf).?

And that's a bad thing?

Geez, if only Peter had shared that terrible character flaw...

Porphyria wrote:

> As to Hermione's keeping secrets, I've always seen this as one of 
> the more extraordinary signs of her strength of character. 

Agreed.  Why on earth should she have told Ron and Harry about the 
Time-Turner?  There was no reason they needed to know about it, and 
she had promised McGonagall that she would keep it a secret.  And I 
thought that her keeping Lupin's secret was very noble, myself.  She 
was certainly proud of herself for sussing it out, and I'm sure that 
some part of her wanted very badly to tell Harry and Ron what she'd 
discovered -- there's more than a touch of frustration in her 
exasperated noise when she realizes that Harry and Ron *still* 
haven't figured it out -- but she resists the temptation.  Good for 
her!  Why should she have outed poor Lupin?

Me, I think that with just a bit more training, Hermione could kick 
Imperius' butt.  She has extraordinary strength of character.

But as for Neville...

Barb wrote:

> It seems that Neville is the best doppelganger for Pettigrew.? He's 
> not considered very competant and he's at the fringes of the group.?

The text itself encourages us to draw this comparison.  In PoA, when 
Harry is trying to visualize that scene between Peter and Sirius on 
the crowded street, it is specified that he imagines Pettigrew as 
looking like Neville.

Of course, Harry doesn't know the true story at the time, and given 
what he _has_ heard, the connection makes perfect sense.  Poor brave-
but-badly-overpowered little Peter Pettigrew confronting Sirius Black 
on the street, only to get blasted to smithereens for his pains, 
neatly parallels Neville's equally-futile confrontation with the Trio 
at the end of PS.

But in the end, Harry's analogy is proved flawed: the situation 
between Pettigrew and Black was not really at all what he had been 
led to believe, and so the parallel that he was originally drawing 
between the two situations doesn't hold up.

I, for one, am certainly hoping that the analogy's darker and more 
sinister alternative implications will prove equally flawed.  It 
would break my heart if Neville went bad.  And I don't really think 
that it's going to happen.

But if I may be permitted to play Devil's Advocate for just a moment 
here...

Porphyria wrote:

> Plus, so far he doesn't seem to be particularly jealous of either 
> Harry or Ron...

GoF, Chapter Eleven ("Aboard the Hogwarts Express"):

"Neville listened jealously to the others' conversation as they 
relived the Cup match."

and then, only two lines later:

"'Oh *wow,*' said Neville enviously as Ron tipped Krum into his pudgy 
hand."

Heh.  No, but I'm just kidding.  I don't think that Neville's really  
at all an envious or a jealous person.  On first reading, though, I 
certainly did notice the use of those adverbs -- and so close 
together, too!  They really jumped off the page at me.  I remember 
thinking: "Oh, no.  JKR isn't trying to encourage us to think of 
Neville as a future Pettigrew *again,* is she?"

Barb:

> A lot of folks have been rooting for Neville to tap into the power 
> he "must" have inherited from his parents, but somehow I'm not 
> completely convinced that would be a good thing...

I agree, although for different reasons.  What I think that I dread 
most about this series is the spectre of Neville "coming into his 
own" and then immediately becoming some Joe Gryffindor warrior type: 
going out and kicking DE butt like his Auror father, upholding his 
family's wretched *pride.*

Ugh.  Gives me the willies, that does.  Neville's plenty brave, just 
the way he is.  He's a fourteen-year-old boy who wears fuzzy slippers 
without shame.  You think *that* doesn't take courage?  

He's never once tried to use his parents' plight to leverage the 
slightest bit of pity or slack out of anyone; he accepts the Trio's 
social brush-offs without complaint; he doesn't go squealing to the 
authorities when Draco Malfoy practices curses on him in the hallway; 
he accepts his punishment for "losing" his list of passwords (a crime 
he didn't even really commit, as it turns out) unflinchingly; he is 
always willing to own up to his own flaws, mistakes and weaknesses; 
and he's capable not only of asking a girl to a ball, but also of 
accepting rejection with good grace -- and then braving rejection a 
second time by asking someone else the very same *day!*

I mean, let's face it.  Neville's ability to find himself a date for 
the Yule Ball, his willingness to brave romantic rejection, makes 
both Ron and Harry look like a couple of utter wusses.  ;-)

The kid's a trooper.  He's got loads of courage.  It's just not the 
sort of courage that his culture values, sadly.

(And I also desperately want to believe that the real reason that 
Neville took one of Hermione's S.P.E.W badges was *not*, as Harry 
thought, because he was browbeaten into it, but because she convinced 
him that she was right about the House Elves -- and because he really 
is *brave.*)


Porphyria wrote:

> Of course I think Neville will kick butt when he _finds himself_, 
> but I'm sure it will be bad-guy butt.

<shudder>

Oh.  I do so hope not.  I just don't want Neville to be a butt-kicker.
Don't we have enough of those already?

I mean, warrior courage is of course very admirable -- and it is also 
exceptionally valuable, especially in a time of war -- but there are 
other types of bravery.  What about the courage of compassion?  Or of 
non-conformism?  Or even of principled pacifism?

What I would really like to see Neville do, once he "finds himself," 
is to serve as an exemplar of some *other* type of courage.  I want 
him to lead sit-down protests in front of the Ministry of Magic.  I 
want him to be disowned by his grandmother for spearheading the 
Wizarding World's very first prison-reform movement.  I want him to 
write a treatise lambasting Hogwarts' hoary old House System.  I want 
him to deliberately lose 200 points for Gryffindor as an act of 
protest against the institution of the House Cup.  I want him to 
adopt an unusual dress style and not care what McGonagall has to say 
about it.  I want him to marry a Muggle.  

I mean, I want to see him do something *really* brave.

But somehow I doubt that any of that will happen.  

<sigh>

-- Elkins

(who favors a highly subversive reading of PS as the tragedy of 
Neville's eventual *failure* to uphold the courageous standards of 
House Gryffindor by caving in to the idiotic social pressures of his 
surroundings and his peers...)

(...and who would like very much to believe that the next time some 
little voice in the back of Neville's head suggests that he launch 
himself into physical combat with both Crabbe and Goyle for no good 
reason whatsoever, he will manage to whip up the internal fortitude 
to answer: "Why, though?...Stupid thing to do, really...No, I don't 
think I will, thanks...no, I don't really want to...")




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Thu Feb  7 22:06:36 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 22:06:36 -0000
Subject: LOLLIPOPS, Timeline, WL3 (Why let Lily live?)
In-Reply-To: <a3uir3+qk9a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3utpc+7n62@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34857

Marina wrote, regards to the theory that Snape left the DEs because of 
Lily:
> > There's also a timing problem: Snape was a spy for some time 
> > before James and Lily died, so for a threat to Lily's life to 
> > become a motivator for Snape changing sides, there would have to 
> > be a lengthy gap between Voldemort deciding to kill the Potters 
> > and actually doing it. 

In response, Cindy proposed an extensive timeline to get around this 
problem.

But, before we go any further on this timeline discusison, let me 
point out that, as far as I can recall, we actually have no info on 
how long Snape spied for Dumbledore.  Sirius says that Peter spied for 
a year (I don't know why the Lexicon would have it as two years), but 
I'm fairly sure there is nothing about how long Snape spied.  
Dumbledore says Snape turned to the "light side" before the fall of 
Voldy.  I took that to mean *right before* the fall of Voldy, but 
that's just my interpretation. 


Mahoney said:
> Petty and mean [Snape] may be on an everyday basis, but when it 
> comes to the *big* stuff, you don't have to bribe him with the 
> object of his obsession to do the right thing, you know? 

Well, I certainly think Snape turned to Dumbledore's side because of 
some altruistic reason, otherwise why would Dumbledore trust him?  And 
I am a big subscriber both to the basic LOILLIPOPS theory (which is 
that Snape was in love with Lily), and the idea that it was this love 
of Lily that brought Snape to Dumbledore's side.  However, as I've 
said before, I *don't* think Snape actually expected any sort of 
relationship with Lily as his reward for turning to Dumbledore's side. 
 I think he just finally realized how evil the DEs were, when he had 
to think about their effects on someone he actually cared about.  

In fact, let me now theorize that Snape *gave up* the chance to be 
with Lily when he switched to Dumbeldore's side.  Suppose Voldy has  
a strong reason to kill James and Harry (I like the theory that they 
are the last descendents of Godric Gryffindor.)  He doesn't have a 
real reason to kill Lily, but then, when does Voldy need a reason to 
kill someone?  However, Voldy discovers that one of his followers 
[Snape] is in love with her.  We know that Voldy believes in rewarding 
his followers (and if he didn't, he probably wouldn't have any.)  So, 
he tells Snape that he plans to kill James and Harry, put Lily under 
Imperio (or give her an amnesia potion or something), and make her 
think she's married to Snape.  

At this point, let me say that even as someone who is infatuated with 
Snape, this theory has a very strong eewwwww factor.  It just seems 
like an absolutely awful thing to do, kill a woman's husband and child 
and make her think she's married to a man who is, in fact, an enemy of 
her real husband.  Let's suppose it also bothers Snape, who already 
was quite distressed at the thought of killing Lily's family.  So, he 
doesn't go along with it, but of course he can't tell Voldy that. 
Instead, Snape goes to Dumbledore to protect the Potters, but his 
efforts come to naught because of Wormtail.

This theory, has some advantages, even if it is too ewww to be trewww 
[great name, Tabouli!]  It gives a reason for Voldy to try to spare 
Lily's life.  (Of course, he doesn't try all that hard, but why offer 
her a chance to live at all?  Won't she dedicate her life to stopping 
him, if he kills her family and leaves her memory intact?)  It also is 
a strong enough test of Snape's character that Dumbledore would later 
trust him.  I mean, if Snape just said "You know, I finally decided I 
don't like this whole muggle-killing thing, can I join you?" wouldn't 
Dumbledore have thought Snape was trying to infiltrate his side?

On the subject of whether LOLLIPOPS, in general, is "ewwww", let me 
say that I've never imagined Snape pining away in his dungeon, writing 
 "SS & LE 4-ever" all over the walls.  If fact, I imagine him as 
showing no outward signs of his unrequited love at all, throwing 
himself into his work.  Of course, he'd still have undying hatred for 
the man who killed Lily (not that Voldy is a *man*, exactly.)  Snape 
is good at the whole undying hatred thing.

By the way, on the topic of "Why did Lily's love protect Harry", let 
me theorize that it was because Lily gave up a chance to survive.  
Yes, Voldy probably attacked whole families before, and other parents 
died to protect their children, but Voldy was going to kill the 
parents *anyway*, so their deaths did not constitute a voluntary 
sacrifice.  Lily may have been one of the few people on the opposing 
side of a battle with Voldy, whom Voldy was willing to spare. 


On another topic, Cindy said she was "going on record to agree with 
Judy that Mrs. Crouch never *did* her son."

Thanks, Cindy!  I needed the show of support!

-- Judy




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  7 21:59:48 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 21:59:48 -0000
Subject: The Recruitment of Pettigrew 
In-Reply-To: <a3su8t+boct@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3utck+damv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34858

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "brewpub44" <brewpub44 at e...> wrote:
> The motive: This is not canon, but is my view on what happened. We 
> all know James & Sirius are the practical jokers, not just on Snape 
> but in general. Now, if their teens were anything like my teens, 
> everyone is fair game for practical jokes, friend or no friend. 
I've 
> seen many fights and broken friendships because of awry practical 
> jokes. And it is also clear that Sirius can't 
> figure it out: again in my experience the practical joker simply 
> can't understand what the big deal is. "It was only a joke!" is the 
> common refrain, meaning he is basically clueless as to what damage 
> (physical, psychological, whatever). He can't fathom Wormy hates 
him 
> for "that simple little thing" and is blown away when Wormy betrays 
> the Potters.

Sounds very plausible.  In PoA, McGonagall says of James and 
Sirius, "I don't think we've ever had such a pair of troublemakers-" 
To which Hagrid replies, "I dunno, Fred and George Weasley could 
give 'em a run for their money." So when we try to imagine the 
teenage James and Sirius, think of Fred and George.  Yes, their 
practical jokes are very funny, if you are WATCHING them, but as we 
have already discussed, a bit bullying if you are on the receiving 
end.  And what if you were on the receiving end quite often?  It 
wouldn't have to have been any one prank (like the source of Snape's 
grudge against Sirius), it could have been a cumulative process that 
convinced Peter that his "friends" aren't really his friends at all.

Add to this Sirius's statements to Peter such as, "Voldemort would be 
sure to come after me, would never dream they'd use a weak, 
talentless thing like you..."  and we get a pretty good idea of 
whether or not Peter was ever held in high regard by Sirius.  Even 
Lupin says that Peter was only able to become an animagus because 
James and Sirius assisted him.  So when James, Sirius, and Remus were 
nice to Peter, he may have perceived it as, "We'll let you hang out 
with us because no one else will hang out with you."  

> The recruitment: So along comes Voldy. He knows he has to kill 
> James and the boy. Yet Harry's parents are talented, and have 
> talented and loyal friends and mentors (no one messes with 
Dumbledore 
> lightly). He needs an inside man. So he studies their circle of 
> friends, and because he too was treated badly as a boy, he can spot 
> other troubled youths whereas those with happy childhoods simply 
> don't understand others' childhood miseries. He spots Wormy, a 
lesser 
> member of the Marauders, treated poorly by the others. He sees the 
> tension. And he acts. Then comes the betrayal, the murder, and 
a .little scar on a baby's forehead. 

But NONE of this excuses Peter.  No way, no how.  I have no doubt 
that James, Sirius, and Remus would all have been willing to risk 
their own lives to protect Peter.  "THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED!" 
roared Black. "DIED RATHER THAN BETRAY YOUR FRIENDS, AS WE WOULD HAVE 
DONE FOR YOU!"








From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Thu Feb  7 22:15:06 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 22:15:06 -0000
Subject: Neville Longbottom. My hero. (Re: In defense of Hermione and Neville)
In-Reply-To: <a3urm2+8q7k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3uu9a+kjg5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34859

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" <theennead at a...> wrote:

> "Neville listened jealously to the others' conversation as they 
> relived the Cup match."
> 
> and then, only two lines later:
> 
> "'Oh *wow,*' said Neville enviously as Ron tipped Krum into his 
pudgy 
> hand."
> 
> Heh.  No, but I'm just kidding.  I don't think that Neville's really 
 
> at all an envious or a jealous person.  On first reading, though, I 
> certainly did notice the use of those adverbs -- and so close 
> together, too!  They really jumped off the page at me.  I remember 
> thinking: "Oh, no.  JKR isn't trying to encourage us to think of 
> Neville as a future Pettigrew *again,* is she?"

All "the future Pettigrew" hints point to something in the future. 
But, FWIW, I think it's a red herring, though I could see people be 
suspicious of each other in the future just like the first time 
around. 

> I agree, although for different reasons.  What I think that I dread 
> most about this series is the spectre of Neville "coming into his 
> own" and then immediately becoming some Joe Gryffindor warrior type: 
> going out and kicking DE butt like his Auror father, upholding his 
> family's wretched *pride.*

I agree! I could not endure that. Thankfully, I don't see JKR doing 
that. 

> 
> Ugh.  Gives me the willies, that does.  Neville's plenty brave, just 
> the way he is.  He's a fourteen-year-old boy who wears fuzzy 
slippers 
> without shame.  You think *that* doesn't take courage?  
> 
> He's never once tried to use his parents' plight to leverage the 
> slightest bit of pity or slack out of anyone; he accepts the Trio's 
> social brush-offs without complaint; he doesn't go squealing to the 
> authorities when Draco Malfoy practices curses on him in the 
hallway; 
> he accepts his punishment for "losing" his list of passwords (a 
crime 
> he didn't even really commit, as it turns out) unflinchingly; he is 
> always willing to own up to his own flaws, mistakes and weaknesses; 
> and he's capable not only of asking a girl to a ball, but also of 
> accepting rejection with good grace -- and then braving rejection a 
> second time by asking someone else the very same *day!*

Go Neville! 
> 
> I mean, let's face it.  Neville's ability to find himself a date for 
> the Yule Ball, his willingness to brave romantic rejection, makes 
> both Ron and Harry look like a couple of utter wusses.  ;-)
> 
> The kid's a trooper.  He's got loads of courage.  It's just not the 
> sort of courage that his culture values, sadly.

Or Harry, at first. But Harry's learning, and I'm sure the culture 
will learn. I was so thrilled when Harry finally was shocked into 
appreciating Neville. 

> (And I also desperately want to believe that the real reason that 
> Neville took one of Hermione's S.P.E.W badges was *not*, as Harry 
> thought, because he was browbeaten into it, but because she 
convinced 
> him that she was right about the House Elves -- and because he 
really 
> is *brave.*)

Of course, Harry's wrong. Since when was Neville brow-beaten into 
anything? He's also a kind and compassionate soul, who would care 
about the house elves's plight if he was convinced of it. Does it say 
in the book if he wore the badge around? 



> I mean, warrior courage is of course very admirable -- and it is 
also 
> exceptionally valuable, especially in a time of war -- but there are 
> other types of bravery.  What about the courage of compassion?  Or 
of 
> non-conformism?  Or even of principled pacifism?
 
Neville a la Frodo Baggins? For the record, I don't like principled 
pacifism strictly, any more than any other principled wrong idea 
(imho), so I'd probably flip my lid if Neville became an out-and-out 
pacifist.(Projecting my own beliefs on the story.) However, I can 
really admire people who are pacifists in certain wars. This, though, 
might not be it.

X: But Voldemort is going to kill us.
Neville: We must practice pacifism. 

On the other hand, JKR could kick up plenty of unjust wars for Neville 
to protest against. How about novels about Neville grown up? 

> 
> What I would really like to see Neville do, once he "finds himself," 
> is to serve as an exemplar of some *other* type of courage.  I want 
> him to lead sit-down protests in front of the Ministry of Magic.  

Wouldn't it be fun to see Percy trying to remove him? Of course, 
sit-down protests in the wizarding world would be a VERY dangerous 
thing. Who knows what the Ministry would do you? A perfect opportunity 
for Neville to be brave. 

>I 
> want him to be disowned by his grandmother for spearheading the 
> Wizarding World's very first prison-reform movement.  

Disinherited of a large fortune, too. And his grandmother instead 
leaves it to St. Mungo's Hospital. But does that stop Neville? 

>I want him to 
> write a treatise lambasting Hogwarts' hoary old House System. 

He could come here for material, no?

> I want 
> him to deliberately lose 200 points for Gryffindor as an act of 
> protest against the institution of the House Cup. 

LOL. 

>I want him to 
> adopt an unusual dress style and not care what McGonagall has to say 
> about it.  

Muggle clothes! In solidarity with Muggles. Or a tea-towel, in 
solidarity with House-Elves!

>I want him to marry a Muggle.  

I want him to marry Ginny, but I like that touch. 
 
> I mean, I want to see him do something *really* brave.
> 
> But somehow I doubt that any of that will happen.  

Why? I don't think there's room for all this in three books which are 
about Harry Potter. But I don't see that Neville's heading for kicking 
butt. He seems to be cut out for a much quieter courage. And he bought 
 a SPEW badge. (/me made several SPEW badges for her Harry Potter 
party, and was astonished that no-one would wear one. So many people 
think that just because Hermione went overboard about the Hogwarts 
elves, SPEW isn't a good idea.)

> (who favors a highly subversive reading of PS as the tragedy of 
> Neville's eventual *failure* to uphold the courageous standards of 
> House Gryffindor by caving in to the idiotic social pressures of his 
> surroundings and his peers...)

Interesting, but I don't think he's going to fail. :-)

Eileen




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Feb  7 22:18:10 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 22:18:10 -0000
Subject: A little George, a little Lollipops, a whole lotta Snape
Message-ID: <a3uuf2+qgs6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34860

All these wonderful additions to the Snape back story..it's time to 
trot out my own.

I think, judging from the way Snape's manner of speech changes 
when he talks to Filch, that Snape grew up in a great wizarding 
household  but as the offspring of servants. Perhaps his parents 
were Squibs, or, more romantically, he's the offspring of a secret 
liason between the master of the House and a Squib parent. I 
think Snape taught himself those curses, and no one paid much 
attention to what he was doing since they didn't think he was 
magical. It would help if Snape has some vampire talent for 
getting through locked doors, into libraries perhaps.
I doubt that anyone ever showed him much regard as a child, or 
offered him any affection that didn't come with strings attached.  

Then he gets his Hogwarts letter and is grudgingly invited into 
that gang of Slytherins, who value him first for his knowledge of 
curses and later for his aptitude for potions. It is this last which 
draws Voldemort's interest. We know that Voldemort is *very* 
interested in the Elixir of Life. I'm sure he would like to find a way 
to duplicate it. 

Voldie understands how  Snape feels, having  grown up 
disclassed himself. The  class he was born into thinks he is 
above his station, and the one he aspires to will never entirely 
accept him because he is not pure blood. He dreams of 
sweeping the whole corrupt order away. Voldemort invites Snape 
into the Inner Circle. He gives Snape the strokes he's never had, 
and doesn't think he needs, and Snape becomes a loyal Death 
Eater...for a while.  But...

There has to be something to the Death Eater name. Voldemort 
subsists on Nagini's venom during GoF, and it seems that 
Nagini has to be fed a wizard now and then. We also know that 
Voldemort's earlier reign was marked by disappearances. I think 
Voldemort had a use for those bodies. I think that Voldemort 
promised his followers that they would share eternal life with 
him, neccessary if the wizards are not to die out after they've 
eliminated the Muggles. He offers those who are worthy his 
version of the elixir of life. Then Snape discovers that Voldemort's 
substitute elixir only works because it contains the venom of a 
snake fed on (shudder) wizards.  Snape realizes that Voldemort 
and his Inner Circle are the enemies of wizards as well as 
Muggles, and switches sides.   He offers to spy for Dumbledore 
because he wants revenge on Voldemort, and he wants to make 
sure that Voldie doesn't win, and because he can't see why 
Dumbledore would offer to protect him if he didn't give 
something in return. His reformation, so far as it's taken place, 
comes *after* his defection, when he begins to understand from 
Dumbledore that such things as trust and unconditional love 
actually exist.

The one thing that convinces me above all else that Snape now 
has something besides selfish motivations for what he does is 
Hagrid's behavior. Hagrid is willing to tolerate Snape's treatment 
of Harry, for reasons that he's not yet willing to explain. There has 
to be more to it than following Dumbledore's lead. I have hopes 
that perhaps Hagrid will reveal more of Snape's back story to 
Harry at some time. 

What Snape/Lily explains best is why Voldemort offered to spare 
Lily in the first place. Suppose Snape asked Voldie to spare her, 
not simply because he was still nursing a crush on her, but 
because she herself arranged it! After Lily knows that the  Potters 
are targets, she works out that Snape is a DE and secretly goes 
to him. Can he do anything to save Harry and James? No, but he 
might be able to do something for her...for the usual price. Lily 
agrees...Snape can have whatever is in her power to give if 
Voldemort spares her life. Though he half suspects what she 
means to do, Snape does ask Voldemort for this boon and 
Voldemort, superior and amused,  agrees. It's of no concern to 
Voldie that Snape wants a mudblood, since Snape is himself not 
Pure. Voldemort offers Lily her life (stand aside you stupid girl), 
and *this* is what makes the magic Lily does for Harry potent 
enough to resist the AK curse. Snape, no sentimentalist, bitterly  
resolves to put the whole business out of his mind and does, 
until Harry shows up at Hogwarts. Every time Snape confronts 
Harry, he sees not only his hated rival and his lost love, but the 
scar which reminds him of how Lily died. 

As far as Snape's crack about Hermione's teeth, one of the 
things that makes JKR's characters so real to me is that they're 
unpredictable, just like the rest of us. Sometimes Hermione 
comes through in an emergency. Other times she loses her 
head,  and let's face it, that was one of the times. She's been 
claiming to know all about curses since she was a first year. 
Surely she ought to know that densaugeo can be reversed. 
Instead of asking permission to go to the hospital wing, what 
does she do? She panics, covering her teeth and whimpering,  
acting like, well, Dudley, or Goyle for that matter.  Snape 
administers the verbal equivalent of a slap in the face. Not very 
nice, perhaps, but effective.   We have to remember that 
Hermione isn't just a fourteen or fifteen year old girl, she's a 
fourteen or fifteen year old *witch* and she's expected to keep 
her wits about her. An interesting sidelight here...Hermione and 
Harry both leave the class. Neville is on his own, they're going to 
be testing antidotes, but Neville apparently does fine. Hmmm. 

It's interesting that Neville's boggart Snape goes for its wand. 
Apparently Neville's great fear is that Snape will curse him, even 
though Snape has never threatened anything of the kind, and 
never uses his wand in class at all. Some have speculated that 
Snape was somehow involved in the attack on Neville's parents. 
What if this is so, but Snape came on the scene as a rescuer? 
One or two year old Neville wouldn't neccessarily understand 
that the wizard who burst into his house, wand blazing, had 
come to help. Neville may keep some unconscious memory of 
this which causes him to fear Snape.

Pippin





From ewe2 at can.org.au  Thu Feb  7 22:17:35 2002
From: ewe2 at can.org.au (Sean Dwyer)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:17:35 +1100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] LAMBASTING (WAS Re: Where's the Canon? )
Message-ID: <20020207221735.GA646@can.org.au>

No: HPFGUIDX 34861

On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 03:04:31AM -0000, cindysphynx wrote:
[space-saving snip]
> Anyway, please understand that I am not saying that my own ideas are 
> pure and canon-based and beyond reproach, because they frequently are 
> not, as has been proven more often than I would like.  I do wonder, 
> however, to what extent it is possible to say that a theory is 
> playing fast and loose with canon.  
> 
> Cindy (hoping that people will continue to spin creative theories 
> because she has fun thinking about them)

Since joining this list, I have been simply overwhelmed by this continuum of
theory vs. canon problem so I have formulated little myself, content to enjoy
the range of theories, even if I don't understand the point of half of them :)

In fact I'm strongly reminded of the fandom of Sherlock Holmes which was
originally serialized, and continues to this day, long after Conan Doyle
desperately killed him off (many fans believe that to be a 'mistake').

Because it is a continuum, I think the only proof of a 'fast and loose' theory
is when canon undisputably shoots it down (and many theories are doomed in the
next book, I'm sure), anything else is within reader speculation. Now for some
reader speculation of my own:

I am personally still clinging to the idea that the wizard vs. muggle theme is
more important than we currently recognise and Harry is still central to how
it will play out. For want of an intelligent acronym, I'm calling it the
L.A.M.B.A.S.T.I.N.G (Love All Muggles Because Alienating Someone True Is Not
Growth) theory.

It's rather simple and well-supported by canon. Some Muggles are Bad
(Dursleys). Some Wizards are Bad (Voldemort). But they both have much to learn
from each other (e.g. Dursleys learn manners from Mr. Weasley, Mr. Weasley
works hard to promote Muggle-understanding among Wizards). They NEED to learn
from each other, before Voldemort destroys everyone. Harry, Ron and Hermione
are all unusually well-placed to appreciate this, and have an important part
to play in bringing the two 'sides' together.

Canon repeatedly underlines the fallacy of believing that position is
dependent on birth and that the real measure of a person is their choices. The
choices of Muggle and Wizard, Death Eater and the Good Guys are purposely
(I submit) bound together in Harry and his choices. Wizards will have to help
Muggles in the coming crisis and vice versa. A Muggle will have to see the
light, as will a Wizard. Harry will have to show both sides what is needed.

If all this sounds like Harry is playing the Redeemer, to me it's hard to
escape that conclusion, whether he survives or not, and merely solving a
wizard's problem like Voldemort isn't the whole story.

Naturally, I believe the only obstacle to this theory (projecting as it does
into the future) is canon, but nevertheless, take a shot :)

Sean, getting out the big guns and manning the barricades. 

-- 
Sean Dwyer <ewe2 at can.org.au>
Web: http://www.geocities.com/ewe2_au/




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Thu Feb  7 22:26:36 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 22:26:36 -0000
Subject: TEWWWW EWWWWW to be trEWWWW (WASRe: LOLLIPOPS, Timeline, WL3 )
In-Reply-To: <a3utpc+7n62@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3uuus+qtqu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34862

A new theory! Known henceforward as "Too EWWWWWW to be trEWWWW."

Voldemort planned to hand Lily over to Severus....... Let me just wrap 
my mind about that one.

Where did Voldie learn that Severus had a think for Lily? 

But, its EWWWWWWness is beter than some of the other EWWWWWWW 
theories, because Severus apparently would say EWWWWWWWW too. 

It would give Voldemort another dimension of villainy. And, it's not a 
bad plot twist either. Tolkien used it twice very nicely. Of course, 
the dif. would be that Severus wouldn't have been in on the 
plot.

But it is EWWW. Isn't it? And hardly childrens' material.

Eileen


--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:
> Marina wrote, regards to the theory that Snape left the DEs because 
of 
> Lily:
> > > There's also a timing problem: Snape was a spy for some time 
> > > before James and Lily died, so for a threat to Lily's life to 
> > > become a motivator for Snape changing sides, there would have to 
> > > be a lengthy gap between Voldemort deciding to kill the Potters 
> > > and actually doing it. 
> 
> In response, Cindy proposed an extensive timeline to get around this 
> problem.
> 
> But, before we go any further on this timeline discusison, let me 
> point out that, as far as I can recall, we actually have no info on 
> how long Snape spied for Dumbledore.  Sirius says that Peter spied 
for 
> a year (I don't know why the Lexicon would have it as two years), 
but 
> I'm fairly sure there is nothing about how long Snape spied.  
> Dumbledore says Snape turned to the "light side" before the fall of 
> Voldy.  I took that to mean *right before* the fall of Voldy, but 
> that's just my interpretation. 
> 
> 
> Mahoney said:
> > Petty and mean [Snape] may be on an everyday basis, but when it 
> > comes to the *big* stuff, you don't have to bribe him with the 
> > object of his obsession to do the right thing, you know? 
> 
> Well, I certainly think Snape turned to Dumbledore's side because of 
> some altruistic reason, otherwise why would Dumbledore trust him?  
And 
> I am a big subscriber both to the basic LOILLIPOPS theory (which is 
> that Snape was in love with Lily), and the idea that it was this 
love 
> of Lily that brought Snape to Dumbledore's side.  However, as I've 
> said before, I *don't* think Snape actually expected any sort of 
> relationship with Lily as his reward for turning to Dumbledore's 
side. 
>  I think he just finally realized how evil the DEs were, when he had 
> to think about their effects on someone he actually cared about.  
> 
> In fact, let me now theorize that Snape *gave up* the chance to be 
> with Lily when he switched to Dumbeldore's side.  Suppose Voldy has 
 
> a strong reason to kill James and Harry (I like the theory that they 
> are the last descendents of Godric Gryffindor.)  He doesn't have a 
> real reason to kill Lily, but then, when does Voldy need a reason to 
> kill someone?  However, Voldy discovers that one of his followers 
> [Snape] is in love with her.  We know that Voldy believes in 
rewarding 
> his followers (and if he didn't, he probably wouldn't have any.)  
So, 
> he tells Snape that he plans to kill James and Harry, put Lily under 
> Imperio (or give her an amnesia potion or something), and make her 
> think she's married to Snape.  
> 
> At this point, let me say that even as someone who is infatuated 
with 
> Snape, this theory has a very strong eewwwww factor.  It just seems 
> like an absolutely awful thing to do, kill a woman's husband and 
child 
> and make her think she's married to a man who is, in fact, an enemy 
of 
> her real husband.  Let's suppose it also bothers Snape, who already 
> was quite distressed at the thought of killing Lily's family.  So, 
he 
> doesn't go along with it, but of course he can't tell Voldy that. 
> Instead, Snape goes to Dumbledore to protect the Potters, but his 
> efforts come to naught because of Wormtail.
> 
> This theory, has some advantages, even if it is too ewww to be 
trewww 
> [great name, Tabouli!]  It gives a reason for Voldy to try to spare 
> Lily's life.  (Of course, he doesn't try all that hard, but why 
offer 
> her a chance to live at all?  Won't she dedicate her life to 
stopping 
> him, if he kills her family and leaves her memory intact?)  It also 
is 
> a strong enough test of Snape's character that Dumbledore would 
later 
> trust him.  I mean, if Snape just said "You know, I finally decided 
I 
> don't like this whole muggle-killing thing, can I join you?" 
wouldn't 
> Dumbledore have thought Snape was trying to infiltrate his side?
> 
> On the subject of whether LOLLIPOPS, in general, is "ewwww", let me 
> say that I've never imagined Snape pining away in his dungeon, 
writing 
>  "SS & LE 4-ever" all over the walls.  If fact, I imagine him as 
> showing no outward signs of his unrequited love at all, throwing 
> himself into his work.  Of course, he'd still have undying hatred 
for 
> the man who killed Lily (not that Voldy is a *man*, exactly.)  Snape 
> is good at the whole undying hatred thing.
> 
> By the way, on the topic of "Why did Lily's love protect Harry", let 
> me theorize that it was because Lily gave up a chance to survive.  
> Yes, Voldy probably attacked whole families before, and other 
parents 
> died to protect their children, but Voldy was going to kill the 
> parents *anyway*, so their deaths did not constitute a voluntary 
> sacrifice.  Lily may have been one of the few people on the opposing 
> side of a battle with Voldy, whom Voldy was willing to spare. 
> 
> 
> On another topic, Cindy said she was "going on record to agree with 
> Judy that Mrs. Crouch never *did* her son."
> 
> Thanks, Cindy!  I needed the show of support!
> 
> -- Judy




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Thu Feb  7 22:48:29 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 22:48:29 -0000
Subject: A little George, a little Lollipops, a whole lotta Snape
In-Reply-To: <a3uuf2+qgs6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3v07t+qvhf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34863

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> I think, judging from the way Snape's manner of speech changes 
> when he talks to Filch, that Snape grew up in a great wizarding 
> household  but as the offspring of servants. 

I don't have the books handy, but how does Snape change his  manner of 
speech? 

>Perhaps his parents 
> were Squibs, or, more romantically, he's the offspring of a secret 
> liason between the master of the House and a Squib parent.

Well, it depends what your idea of romantic is, I suppose. I've heard 
people wildly speculating that Snape is Lucius Malfoy's illegitimate 
son, thus explaining his apprent friendliness towards Draco: his 
half-brother. 

>I 
> think Snape taught himself those curses, and no one paid much 
> attention to what he was doing since they didn't think he was 
> magical. 

I do like the idea of lonely Snape as a child in the library. 

>It would help if Snape has some vampire talent for 
> getting through locked doors, into libraries perhaps.

Where does he get the vampire ability in this scenario?

> I doubt that anyone ever showed him much regard as a child, or 
> offered him any affection that didn't come with strings attached.  
> 
> Then he gets his Hogwarts letter and is grudgingly invited into 
> that gang of Slytherins, who value him first for his knowledge of 
> curses and later for his aptitude for potions. It is this last which 
> draws Voldemort's interest. We know that Voldemort is *very* 
> interested in the Elixir of Life. I'm sure he would like to find a 
way 
> to duplicate it. 

Good point. I hadn't picked up on this. Voldemort's special field of 
interest is connected with potions. 

By the way, I discovered about a week ago that some of the Nazis were 
trying to reproduce a philosopher's stone. Like all Nazi occult 
stories, it must be taken with a grain of salt, but my Dad was doing 
some serious research into a modern hoax, and he uncovered all these 
interesting things. 

> 
> There has to be something to the Death Eater name. Voldemort 
> subsists on Nagini's venom during GoF,

/me feels stupid. She had thought Nagini was giving the snake 
equivalent of cow's milk. :-(

>and it seems that 
> Nagini has to be fed a wizard now and then.

Does it say that in the books?

>We also know that 
> Voldemort's earlier reign was marked by disappearances.

I don't remember disappearances, but people coming home and finding 
their families, friends dead. Is there a source for this? The 
accompanying theory is pretty good except....

 I think 
> Voldemort had a use for those bodies. I think that Voldemort 
> promised his followers that they would share eternal life with 
> him, neccessary if the wizards are not to die out after they've 
> eliminated the Muggles. He offers those who are worthy his 
> version of the elixir of life. Then Snape discovers that Voldemort's 
> substitute elixir only works because it contains the venom of a 
> snake fed on (shudder) wizards.  Snape realizes that Voldemort 
> and his Inner Circle are the enemies of wizards as well as 
> Muggles, and switches sides.   

One thing I couldn't take was if Snape switched sides on a racist 
basis. There. 


> The one thing that convinces me above all else that Snape now 
> has something besides selfish motivations for what he does is 
> Hagrid's behavior. Hagrid is willing to tolerate Snape's treatment 
> of Harry, for reasons that he's not yet willing to explain. There 
has 
> to be more to it than following Dumbledore's lead. I have hopes 
> that perhaps Hagrid will reveal more of Snape's back story to 
> Harry at some time. 

Very true. 

> What Snape/Lily explains best is why Voldemort offered to spare 
> Lily in the first place. Suppose Snape asked Voldie to spare her, 
> not simply because he was still nursing a crush on her, but 
> because she herself arranged it! After Lily knows that the  Potters 
> are targets, she works out that Snape is a DE and secretly goes 
> to him. Can he do anything to save Harry and James? No, but he 
> might be able to do something for her...for the usual price. Lily 
> agrees...Snape can have whatever is in her power to give if 
> Voldemort spares her life. Though he half suspects what she 
> means to do, Snape does ask Voldemort for this boon and 
> Voldemort, superior and amused,  agrees. 

Half suspects? Here's a theory that will make Snape a little less 
slimy in the situation.

It's near the end. They are about to cast the Fidelius charm, but Lily 
is still worried. So, she comes up with a back-up plan. She proposes 
it to Severus, who is on Dumbledore's side at that point. He isn't 
enthusiastic about it, but she begs him to do it, and says that the 
Fidelius charm is sure to work, but if it fails..... 

So, then he goes to Voldemort with his horrible proposal. "Kill the 
Potters if you like, but spare Lily for me." Voldemort is not just 
amused but as he needs Snape for the research agrees. 

> Voldemort offers Lily her life (stand aside you stupid girl), 
> and *this* is what makes the magic Lily does for Harry potent 
> enough to resist the AK curse. 

Very good. If it's true, though, Voldemort would bear Snape a huge 
grudge for the whole fiasco. On the other hand, he'd still need Snape 
for the research, even now. 

>Snape, no sentimentalist, bitterly  
> resolves to put the whole business out of his mind and does, 
> until Harry shows up at Hogwarts. Every time Snape confronts 
> Harry, he sees not only his hated rival and his lost love, but the 
> scar which reminds him of how Lily died. 

Very emotional. 

> It's interesting that Neville's boggart Snape goes for its wand. 
> Apparently Neville's great fear is that Snape will curse him, even 
> though Snape has never threatened anything of the kind, and 
> never uses his wand in class at all. Some have speculated that 
> Snape was somehow involved in the attack on Neville's parents. 

Impossible. Unless Snape was torturing people after he came back to 
Dumbledore, and then Ron's deepest suspicions would be realized. 

> What if this is so, but Snape came on the scene as a rescuer? 
> One or two year old Neville wouldn't neccessarily understand 
> that the wizard who burst into his house, wand blazing, had 
> come to help. Neville may keep some unconscious memory of 
> this which causes him to fear Snape.

I like this, though I still enjoy the "Lucius Malfoy accidentally 
saved Neville's life through his own self-promoting schemes," theory. 
Perhaps they could be combined.

Eileen




From mdawson.design at dial.pipex.com  Thu Feb  7 22:31:54 2002
From: mdawson.design at dial.pipex.com (Marjorie Dawson)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 22:31:54 -0000
Subject: Sirius as a possible future traitor - Harry's point of View
References: <a3tiej+mcqj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004001c1b027$3fe6fbc0$6097bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 34864

Surely, JKR would not build Sirus up into Harry's substitute "father figure", including the promise of summer visits chez Sirius, only to destroy totally the one thing that links Harry with his parents - and for which Harry as a boy has real affection (or maybe she is................)  She has intimated that further death's will are coming which will affect Harry - Sirius or Remus Lupin perhaps?  Remus did help with the Patronus after all, and Sirus was sent to him to lie low at the end of GoF.

Felicia


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





From vencloviene at hotmail.com  Thu Feb  7 23:40:58 2002
From: vencloviene at hotmail.com (anavenc)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 23:40:58 -0000
Subject: A little George, a little Lollipops, a whole lotta Snape
In-Reply-To: <a3uuf2+qgs6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3v3aa+ah3t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34865

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
 
> What Snape/Lily explains best is why Voldemort offered to spare 
> Lily in the first place. Suppose Snape asked Voldie to spare her, 
> not simply because he was still nursing a crush on her, but 
> because she herself arranged it! After Lily knows that the  Potters 
> are targets, she works out that Snape is a DE and secretly goes 
> to him. Can he do anything to save Harry and James? No, but he 
> might be able to do something for her...for the usual price. Lily 
> agrees...Snape can have whatever is in her power to give if 
> Voldemort spares her life. Though he half suspects what she 
> means to do, Snape does ask Voldemort for this boon and 
> Voldemort, superior and amused,  agrees. It's of no concern to 
> Voldie that Snape wants a mudblood, since Snape is himself not 
> Pure. Voldemort offers Lily her life (stand aside you stupid girl), 
> and *this* is what makes the magic Lily does for Harry potent 
> enough to resist the AK curse. Snape, no sentimentalist, bitterly  
> resolves to put the whole business out of his mind and does, 
> until Harry shows up at Hogwarts. Every time Snape confronts 
> Harry, he sees not only his hated rival and his lost love, but the 
> scar which reminds him of how Lily died. 
> 

This would be a breathtaking plot twist, and also put many things 
(Snape's angst, his hatred of Harry etc) in a new light.  However, I 
can't help hoping that Pippin's theory is wrong.  The whole idea of 
my-mother-was-promised-to-my-teacher-as-a-war-trophy somewhat 
disturbing.  I am not sure that it is consistent with the general tone 
of the children-oriented (or semi-oriented, OK) books.  This would be 
more like something from an adult fantasy novel, IMO.  On the other 
side, the series is getting more and more adult and disturbing with 
every new book, so ... *shrugs* 

By the way, it was mentioned in a recent post, that Tolkien also used 
a-woman-as-a-reward-for-treachery theme.  And the lusting character's 
name in LOTR was, of course, Wormtongue.  Now, who of all Lily's peers 
has a similar name?  Why don't I give Pippin's theory a new twist.  
What if  Pettigrew secretly was in love with (or had an unhealthy 
interest in) Lily?  What if she was promised by Voldie to him, not 
Snape?  Snape-the-spy learned that some DE asked Voldie to spare Lily, 
told Dumbledore and so on, as in Pippin's theory... Just joking, of 
course.

Ana.




From cindysphynx at home.com  Thu Feb  7 23:47:21 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 23:47:21 -0000
Subject: LOLLIPOPS, Timeline, WL3 (Why Let Lily live?)
In-Reply-To: <a3utpc+7n62@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3v3m9+4vqu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34866

Judy questioned:

> But, before we go any further on this timeline discusison, let me 
> point out that, as far as I can recall, we actually have no info on 
> how long Snape spied for Dumbledore.  

Oh, we have almost no clue in canon at all, that's true.  Dumbledore 
says "before."  My gut says that the word "before" is more than weeks 
and more than a few months.  Really, if Snape if going to do enough 
spying to do any good, you'd think he would be doing it for more than 
a little while.  I also like a longer time period because a longer 
time period = greater risk to Snape, which makes Snape even more 
brave, which ought to appeal to the Snapefans.

Judy again:

> Well, I certainly think Snape turned to Dumbledore's side because 
of 
> some altruistic reason, otherwise why would Dumbledore trust him?  

::ambushambushambush::

Seriously, I am devastated that there aren't more believers in the 
idea that Dumbledore didn't just believe Snape's conversion was true 
because Snape said it was.  It doesn't matter *what* Snape gives as 
his reason, Dumbledore *has* to have some objective evidence that 
Snape isn't a double agent and isn't lying.  

So a challenge:  If Dumbledore doesn't insist on something like the 
ambush, what is Dumbledore thinking?  Why does he just take Snape's 
word?  Give me something to go on here, people, anything.  Did 
Dumbledore use Veritaserum on Snape?  

Judy again: 

<snip "Eeeww" theory that Voldemort spares Lily to hand her over to 
Snape, who can use a lifetime of illegal curses and potions to have 
his way with her>

Oh, man.  Creative and logical though it is, this new "Eeww" theory 
isn't nudging me in the right direction at all. Forget about Snape 
having Lily's picture all over the dungeon walls.  That's small 
potatoes.  Now, Snape is so pathetic, disturbed and deranged that he 
wants Lily even if he can only have her through the Imperius Curse 
and a cauldron full of love potion?  Poor Snape.  Aren't there any 
decent women in the wizarding world who find sallow skin and greasy 
hair to be really hot?  :-)

Judy again:

> This theory, has some advantages, even if it is too ewww to be 
trewww 
> [great name, Tabouli!]  It gives a reason for Voldy to try to spare 
> Lily's life.  (Of course, he doesn't try all that hard, but why 
offer 
> her a chance to live at all?  Won't she dedicate her life to 
stopping 
> him, if he kills her family and leaves her memory intact?)  


In this entertaining showdown of ever-escalating theories, I suppose 
I have to ramp up Prince/Mercy even to stay in the same stadium.  I 
must admit that my enthusiasm has begun to flag, however, because 
Prince/Mercy appears to have no followers at all, and even George 
seems to be brazenly flirting with the LOLLIPOPS crew, right under my 
nose.  No SHIP for me; I have a small stall on the dock selling 
overpriced trinkets.  

Well, let's see what we can do here.  Judy raises a great question:  
Why did Voldemort attempt to spare Lily?  

It was all Peter's fault, you see.  Peter-The-Talentless was spying 
for Voldemort, catching snatches of conversations with Dumbledore's 
team.  One thing he hears is that Lily, talented charm-caster that 
she is, might have provided some ill-defined trap or protection for  
Harry. Peter doesn't know the details, but he gets the idea that 
killing Lily will make things worse.  He tells Voldemort this ("I 
think, My Lord, that you ought to go straight for the toddler and 
leave Lily alone, just to play it safe.").  When Voldemort attacks 
the Potters, he tells Lily to step aside because he's unsure what 
kind of trap he's walking into.  She doesn't step aside and continues 
shielding Harry, so he blasts her anyway, partly because he figures 
there is no protection and partly because she defied him, and he just 
hates that.  The rest is history.  

Where's the canon, where's the canon?  Uh, uh, Peter has been in 
hiding, according to Sirius, because Voldemort's old supporters think 
he double-crossed Voldemort.  "Voldemort went to the Potters' on your 
information."  I submit that the "information" was more than where 
the Potters were, but also the nature of the protection surrounding 
Harry.  Peter didn't provide enough of a warning about the 
consequences of killing Lily, and that's why Voldemort wound up as a 
slimy baby.

Judy again (offering a rational explanation refuting my overblown 
scenario that Snape is a pitiful Hollywood stalker):

>If fact, I imagine him as 
> showing no outward signs of his unrequited love at all, throwing 
> himself into his work.  

Yes, but. . . if Snape shows no outward signs of his unrequited love, 
then how does Voldemort (or anyone else like Peter) ever learn about 
it?

Cindy (who thinks she has utterly failed in her mission to establish 
Snape's backstory, who is unfurling her white flag, and who hopes to 
talk Elkins into posting her "Up With Avery" essay)





From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com  Fri Feb  8 00:33:19 2002
From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 18:33:19 -0600
Subject: Sirius & deaths (was: Sirius as a possible future traitor - Harry's 
 point of View)
References: <a3tiej+mcqj@eGroups.com> <004001c1b027$3fe6fbc0$6097bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>
Message-ID: <3C631CCF.6A09ADD7@kingwoodcable.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34867

Marjorie Dawson wrote:
> 
> Surely, JKR would not build Sirus up into Harry's substitute "father figure", including the promise of summer visits chez Sirius, only to destroy totally the one thing that links Harry with his parents - and for which Harry as a boy has real affection (or maybe she is................)  She has intimated that further death's will are coming which will affect Harry - Sirius or Remus Lupin perhaps?  Remus did help with the Patronus after all, and Sirus was sent to him to lie low at the end of GoF.<<

I've always felt that the "death that will be hard to write" will be
Hagrid, Lupin, or Dumbledore. I never thought Sirius. I once posted a
list (message 33158, "deaths, Ginny's fate") of the characters Rowling
has stated were her favorites. The two that were mentioned the *most*
times are Lupin and Hagrid. I'd think that a death that would be hard to
write would be a favorite character...one to whom she is attached. She
did mention the trio a lot, and I still have no idea if H/Hr/R are going
to survive. Though, I have to say that if she kills Harry...she might as
well go whack everyone and destroy the wizarding world...that would be a
fun gory novel to read.

I hope that Sirius survives. I think that Harry would do well with
Sirius still around, and I love the pair together. Very much a
protector/father that Harry has never had. I would be very sad if
Rowling whacked him 8-(

Anyway...that's my take on it!
-Katze



From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Fri Feb  8 00:45:19 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:45:19 -0000
Subject: More LOLLIPOPS, Timeline, WL3 
In-Reply-To: <a3v3m9+4vqu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3v72v+66kq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34868

On when Snape turned spy, I said:
> > before we go any further on this timeline discusison, let me 
> > point out that, as far as I can recall, we actually have no info 
> > on how long Snape spied for Dumbledore.  

And Cindy replied:
> ...  Really, if Snape if going to do enough spying 
> to do any good, you'd think he would be doing it for more 
> than a little while.  I also like a longer time period because 
> a longer time period = greater risk to Snape, which makes Snape 
> even more brave, which ought to appeal to the Snapefans.

True, but I like the idea that Snape turned to the Light Side right 
before the fall of Voldy.  That way, we have proof that Dumbledore 
believes in "repent at the last minute, and you will be forgiven," 
which would support my theory that the Potter series is actually a 
Christian allegory. 

Cindy asks:
>...If Dumbledore doesn't insist on something like the 
> ambush, what is Dumbledore thinking?  Why does he just take Snape's 
> word?  Give me something to go on here, people, anything.  Did 
> Dumbledore use Veritaserum on Snape?  

How about: Dumbledore peers over his glasses (he does wear glasses, 
right?) at Snape, his light blue eyes twinkling, and decides Snape is 
telling the truth. 



Then, Cindy summarized my "Too EEEWW to be TrEEEWW" theory as 
>> Voldemort spares Lily to hand her over to Snape, who can use a 
>> lifetime of illegal curses and potions to have 
>> his way with her>

And responded to it thusly:
> Oh, man.  Creative and logical though it is, this new "Eeww" theory 
> isn't nudging me in the right direction at all. Forget about Snape 
> having Lily's picture all over the dungeon walls.  That's small 
> potatoes.  Now, Snape is so pathetic, disturbed and deranged that he 
> wants Lily even if he can only have her through the Imperius Curse 
> and a cauldron full of love potion?...

First of all, thank you Cindy for realizing that I was the first to 
propose this theory, as well as calling it creative and logical!  
However, in my theory, Voldemort just *thinks* Snape would be willing 
to stoop to love potions or Imperio to get Lily to fall in love with 
him.  In my theory, Snape is actually appalled by the whole idea.

Of course, the fact that Voldy would propose such an idea means that 
Voldy is disturbed and deranged, but we already *know* that. 


On the topic of whether Snape was a love-sick stalker, I said:
>> If [sic] fact, I imagine [Snape] as showing no outward signs of his
>> unrequited love at all, throwing himself into his work.  

 And Cindy asked:
> Yes, but. . . if Snape shows no outward signs of his unrequited 
> love, then how does Voldemort (or anyone else like Peter) ever learn 
> about it?

Um, good question.  Well, at some point, maybe Voldy asks Snape "Why 
do you hate James Potter so much", and since Voldy can detect lies, 
Snape has to fess up that he loves Lily. (In my theory, Peter doesn't 
have to know that Snape loves Lily.) 


Sadly, Cindy said she
> thinks she has utterly failed in her mission to establish 
> Snape's backstory, [and] is unfurling her white flag, and who hopes 
> to talk Elkins into posting her "Up With Avery" essay

Don't worry, Cindy!  Maybe when OoP comes out, the crew of Lollipops 
will go down with our Ship!  (Er, what's the "Up with Avery" Essay, 
and where would Elkins post it?)

-- Judy




From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com  Fri Feb  8 01:30:41 2002
From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 19:30:41 -0600
Subject: Snape & Dumbledore (was: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: More LOLLIPOPS, 
 Timeline, WL3)
References: <a3v72v+66kq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C632A41.7AC1C8AA@kingwoodcable.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34869

judyserenity wrote:
> Cindy asks:
> >...If Dumbledore doesn't insist on something like the
> > ambush, what is Dumbledore thinking?  Why does he just take Snape's
> > word?  Give me something to go on here, people, anything.  Did
> > Dumbledore use Veritaserum on Snape?
> 
> How about: Dumbledore peers over his glasses (he does wear glasses,
> right?) at Snape, his light blue eyes twinkling, and decides Snape is
> telling the truth.

Here's something to go on...Harry has mentioned that it feels like D is
examining him when D looks at him. D also saw through Tom Riddle.
Perhaps he was able to peer into Snape and see who he is, much like the
sorting hat with the children?

-Katze



From vencloviene at hotmail.com  Fri Feb  8 01:30:38 2002
From: vencloviene at hotmail.com (anavenc)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 01:30:38 -0000
Subject: More LOLLIPOPS, Timeline, WL3
In-Reply-To: <a3v72v+66kq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3v9nu+dfe9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34870

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:
(on to EWW to be trEWW)
 
> First of all, thank you Cindy for realizing that I was the first to 
> propose this theory, as well as calling it creative and logical!  
> However, in my theory, Voldemort just *thinks* Snape would be 
willing 
> to stoop to love potions or Imperio to get Lily to fall in love with 
> him.  In my theory, Snape is actually appalled by the whole idea.


Oops, Judy. I honestly thought it was Pippin's theory.  My sincere 
apologies!  *blushes*
Anyhow I still think that this theory is too *ahem* adult.  Remember 
JKR's musing on Hermione's going and getting pregnant at the age of 
fourteen: it wouldn't work in this kind of story. For me,the same is 
true about Lily's-imperius-induced-love-as-a-reward-for-faithful-DEs 
idea. 

An ingenious theory, though!


Ana.





From cindysphynx at home.com  Fri Feb  8 01:53:10 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 01:53:10 -0000
Subject: More LOLLIPOPS, Timeline, WL3
In-Reply-To: <a3v72v+66kq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3vb26+v4h1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34871

Judy wrote (on why Dumbledore accepts that Snape's conversion is 
true):

> How about: Dumbledore peers over his glasses (he does wear glasses, 
> right?) at Snape, his light blue eyes twinkling, and decides Snape 
is 
> telling the truth. 


Katze added:

>Here's something to go on...Harry has mentioned that it feels like D 
>is
> examining him when D looks at him. D also saw through Tom Riddle.
> Perhaps he was able to peer into Snape and see who he is, much like 
>the
> sorting hat with the children?

Hmmm.  If Dumbledore can really tell when people are telling the 
truth by peering over his glasses, he needs to get himself a new 
prescription.  :-)

The idea is tempting (er, let's call it Omnicient Dumbledore), but 
there are too many instances in which Dumbledore has no ability to 
peer into people's eyes and see if they are telling the truth.  
Crouch/Moody is certainly an instance in which Dumbledore was off his 
game.  Lockhart would be another.  Quirrell would be another.  The 
Marauders' and their werewolf adventures might be another.  I think 
Dumbledore might have decent intuition, but nothing more than that.

Canon, OK, I need some canon.  Dumbledore gives us a key line in the 
Pensieve chapter that means that something happened between himself 
and Snape that caused him to trust Snape's conversion.  When Harry 
asks about this point-blank, Dumbledore says, "That, Harry, is a 
matter between Professor Snape and myself."  If he had just followed 
his gut or instinct, he wouldn't have said that.  He would have said 
something like, "I just know."

Judy continued (about how Voldemort knew of Snape's obsession with 
Lily):

> Well, at some point, maybe Voldy asks Snape "Why 
> do you hate James Potter so much", and since Voldy can detect lies, 
> Snape has to fess up that he loves Lily. 

Hmmm.  Now we have Omnicient Voldemort battling Omnicient 
Dumbledore.  :-)

Boy, I don't know.  If Voldemort can detect lies, then why is he so 
darn, well, stupid?  He has his radar set to pick up that Snape loves 
Lily, but he never changes the channel to pick up that Snape is 
spying for Dumbledore?    

Judy again:

>Er, what's the "Up with Avery" Essay, 
> and where would Elkins post it?)
> 

Elkins mentioned in her "Subversive Canon" post that she had written 
a defense of Avery.  I'm thinking that if we ask nicely and 
collectively whisper sweet nothings in her ear, she might post it on 
the main list so we can all . . . hack it to bits.  :-)

Cindy (realizing that sometimes ya just gotta have faith, but doesn't 
think a war with Voldemort is one of those times)  





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Feb  8 02:10:41 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 02:10:41 -0000
Subject: More LOLLIPOPS, Timeline, WL3
In-Reply-To: <a3v9nu+dfe9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3vc31+7kfq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34872

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "anavenc" <vencloviene at h...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> 
wrote:
> (on to EWW to be trEWW)
>  
> > First of all, thank you Cindy for realizing that I was the first to 
> > propose this theory, as well as calling it creative and logical!  
> > However, in my theory, Voldemort just *thinks* Snape would 
be 
> willing to stoop to love potions or Imperio to get Lily to fall in 
love with 
> > him.  In my theory, Snape is actually appalled by the whole 
idea.
> 
> 
> Oops, Judy. I honestly thought it was Pippin's theory.

Er, well, I hadn't read Judy's theory when I posted, due to posting 
delay. So please don't think I was trying to steal Judy's thunder. 
Great minds think alike :-) I was mostly just trying to come up 
with a Snape/Lily theory that didn't require Severus to come over 
all mushy. :-)

  The theories are slightly different, as I think of Snape as far too 
proud to take anything he didn't think he had *earned* in some 
way.  I would never imagine Snape even trying to convince 
Voldemort that he would use Imperius or potions to coerce a 
woman.

 I don't think it would have to be too dark, though, for Harry to 
discover that his mother and Snape had some history. JKR is 
able to suggest some quite dark things without ever being 
explicit. Turning Mrs. Roberts upside down, for example, and 
having Draco say that Hermione was in like danger of showing 
her knickers to the world.

I could see Voldemort taunting seventeen year old Harry at some 
point and saying, "I don't believe I've ever told you why I offered to 
spare your mother's life. Severus wanted her. Loved her, I 
suppose, if you want to call it that. No, Severus is not really nice. 
You had better leave him to me." though JKR would probably not 
steal  from Tolkien quite so directly.

 Pippin





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Fri Feb  8 02:13:26 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 02:13:26 -0000
Subject: More LOLLIPOPS, Timeline, WL3
In-Reply-To: <a3vb26+v4h1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3vc86+p6h6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34873

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> Canon, OK, I need some canon.  Dumbledore gives us a key line in 
the 
> Pensieve chapter that means that something happened between 
himself 
> and Snape that caused him to trust Snape's conversion.  When Harry 
> asks about this point-blank, Dumbledore says, "That, Harry, is a 
> matter between Professor Snape and myself."  If he had just 
followed 
> his gut or instinct, he wouldn't have said that.  He would have 
said 
> something like, "I just know."

Very true.  Dumbledore's response suggest that Snape took some 
specific action to earn Dumbledore's trust -- something fairly major 
and dramatic, presumably.  Maybe something to do with the 
aforementioned "great personal risk?"  Hmm... I think George would 
not take the word "ambush" amiss right about now.

Another thought -- the "that's between Snape and myself" answer 
seems to go against the notion that Snape's conversion had anything 
to do with the Potters.  Because if it did, then Harry would have a 
legitimate right to know about it, so Dumbledore wouldn't be able to 
honestly say that it wasn't any of Harry's business.  

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From devin.smither at yale.edu  Fri Feb  8 02:48:23 2002
From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 02:48:23 -0000
Subject: Climbin' on board the good ship LOLLIPOPS
In-Reply-To: <a3vc86+p6h6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3ve9n+l1t6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34874

I must say I have long been a member of the crew of LOLLIPOPS in one 
fashion or another.  Back in the day, I only came onto the Snape 
liked Lily (in a very distant, very NOT "too ewwwww to be treeewwwww" 
sort of way--no SS loves LE, no pictures, no stalking) theory to 
justify in my own mind his wretched behavior toward Harry.  He 
(Harry) is a constant reminder of Lily's not liking Snape but James, 
and it is because of Harry, indirectly, that Lily was killed.  
However, the discussion on this board has led me to believe that 
another good reason to believe in this theory is that it does give 
Snape the right kind of impetus to leave the Death Eaters.

To all Snape fans, I say this does not detract one bit from his 
amazing moral constitution if it is true.  I know I've made decisions 
that something I was doing was wrong, wrong, WRONG based on the 
effects it had on someone I actually cared about.  I had just sort of 
not realized that real people with feelings and such were hurt by it, 
and it changed my moral outlook.  To me, if Snape suddenly realized 
the Death Eater cause was wrong (morally, etc.) because they were 
going to harm someone he cared about (ergo, they had been harming 
people before that were worth caring about), that does not make his 
moral switch any less brave or amazing.  It takes a lot of courage to 
open your eyes to the truth, and Snape, if he indeed did do this, 
deserves a pat on the back, and a woman who does like him to ease his 
pain with more than a pat on the back (I'm sure a few women on this 
board are up for the job).  Anyone remember that chat where Rowling 
was surprised when someone asked if Snape would ever fall in love, 
and then mentioned Book VII would answer that question?  Well, even 
as a non-liker of Snape (currently), I'm hoping for a love interest 
for him (without changing his nasty behavior TOO much) somewhere down 
the line.

About Marina's statement that it IS in fact Harry's business if the 
reason Dumbledore trusted Snape is somewhat because of Lily, and yet 
Dumbledore says it is between Snape and himself: 
love/affection/infatuation is kind of a touchy subject, and it might 
not do Harry too much good if Dumbledore made it clear that Snape 
liked Lily.  And besides, that really is not Harry's business at 
all.  It's in the past, and doesn't need bringing up.  It's enough 
that Harry knows Dumbledore trusts Snape.  Another thing, how would 
you like to be the one to tell Harry, "Well, see, Snape, a man you 
understandably detest, rather fancied your mother, and this is part 
of why I trust him so much.  You're completely cool with the idea of 
Snape fancying your mother, right?"

At any rate, I just wanted to support LOLLIPOPS for what its worth 
and declare my own presence aboard said ship.  Let the can(n)on fire 
begin.  (Yes, I borrowed that "can(n)on" bit, but it was just too 
good not to steal)

Devin, up in the crow's nest of LOLLIPOPS just waiting to shout "Land 
ho!" when the time is right





From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Fri Feb  8 03:30:21 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 03:30:21 -0000
Subject: Even More LOLLIPOPS & WL3, Omniscience
In-Reply-To: <a3vc31+7kfq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a3vgoe+3e1b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34875

In regards to the "Eeewww" theory (that Voldy was saving Lily for 
Snape), Ana said:
> > Oops, Judy. I honestly thought it was Pippin's theory.
And Pippin replied:
> Er, well, I hadn't read Judy's theory when I posted, due to posting 
> delay. So please don't think I was trying to steal Judy's thunder. 
> Great minds think alike :-) 

Hey, no problem!  Actually, considering the "adult nature" of this 
theory, maybe I should be glad I wasn't the only one who thought of 
it!  

Actually, Pippin, we simultaneously came up with two unrelated 
theories:
1) That Voldy planned to spare Lily because Snape was in love with 
her, and
2) That Lily was able to save Harry because she had a real chance to 
survive, thus making the magic of her sacrifice more powerfiul. (This 
can be true regardless of whether Snape had anything to do with Lily.)

So, shall we publish together? 
 

Pippin also said:
> I would never imagine Snape even trying to convince 
> Voldemort that he would use Imperius or potions to coerce a 
> woman.

Me neither; rather, I'd theorize that Voldy found out about Snape's 
feelings for Lily, and just (incorrectly) *thought* Snape would want 
this. 
 
Ana added:
> Anyhow I still think that this theory is too *ahem* adult. Remember 
> JKR's musing on Hermione's going and getting pregnant at the age of 
> fourteen: it wouldn't work in this kind of story. 

True; it would have to be implied.  (By the way, in response to 
Pippin's comments about Mrts. Roberts being turned upside down: I 
think what happened to the Roberts was quite bad enough, especially 
since the DEs were likely to drop them at some point, without more 
being implied.)  When did JKR muse about Hermione getting pregnant, by 
the way? 



Now, on to Omniscience:

Cindy asked: >>>Why does [Dumbledore] just take Snape's word? 

And I replied: >>Dumbledore peers over his glasses at Snape, his light 
>>blue eyes twinkling, and decides Snape is telling the truth.

Katze added:
> Harry has mentioned that it feels like D is
> examining him when D looks at him. D also saw through Tom Riddle.
> Perhaps he was able to peer into Snape and see who he is, much like 
> the sorting hat with the children?

Yep, that is exactly was I was getting at; Harry keep saying he thinks 
Dumbledore can tell when he's lying. 

Cindy objected:
> The idea is tempting (er, let's call it Omnicient Dumbledore), but 
> there are too many instances in which Dumbledore has no ability to 
> peer into people's eyes and see if they are telling the truth. 

I had also said:
>> Well, at some point, maybe Voldy asks Snape "Why 
>> do you hate James Potter so much", and since Voldy can detect lies, 
>> Snape has to fess up that he loves Lily. 

Cindy points out:
> Hmmm. Now we have Omnicient Voldemort battling Omnicient 
> Dumbledore. :-)
> Boy, I don't know. If Voldemort can detect lies, then why is he so 
> darn, well, stupid? He has his radar set to pick up that Snape loves 
> Lily, but he never changes the channel to pick up that Snape is 
> spying for Dumbledore? 

OK, let me clarify.  First, I think there is no question that Voldy at 
least *believes* himself to have the ability to detect outright lies; 
he repeatedly says so.  If so, why can't he figure out that *someone* 
is spying on him?  (We know for sure that at least Snape spied on him, 
and maybe others.)  Well, maybe he never asks the right questions. In 
other words, maybe it's the same problem as the whole overconfidence, 
can't-even-kill-a-little-boy-because-I'm-too-busy-ranting-and-raving 
thing.  In other words, Voldy's general incompetence is a serious 
weakness in the plot, but, hey, what can you do? 

Dumbledore has a different ability, I think.  No, he can't detect all 
lies.  But, sometimes he gets strong intuitive feelings that a certain 
person is telling the truth, and he goes with that.  So, much of the 
time he would be unsure whether or not he was hearing the truth, but 
when his intuition says "this is the truth" (which make happen only 
rarely), he's sure he's right. This would give his ability an 
interesting symmetry with Voldy's. 

Marina said:
> Another thought -- the "that's between Snape and myself" answer 
> seems to go against the notion that Snape's conversion had anything 
> to do with the Potters. Because if it did, then Harry would have a 
> legitimate right to know about it, so Dumbledore wouldn't be able to 
> honestly say that it wasn't any of Harry's business. 

Well, this is a good point.  Still, perhaps it just means D. promised 
Snape he wouldn't tell.  I mean, suppose D. told Harry "Well, Snape 
really had it bad for your mother, and Voldy said he could have her, 
but Snape decided to try to save all of you instead." I think Snape's 
head would explode if D. did that. 

-- Judy




From Whirdy at aol.com  Fri Feb  8 03:35:07 2002
From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 22:35:07 EST
Subject: Hermione, Dobby, Memories and Harry Works Alone!
Message-ID: <157.897991c.2994a16b@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34876

In the interests of brevity:

1.  Why were there no repercussions when Hermione tore a page out of an old 
book in the CoS.

2.  How could Dobby disappear at the end of CoS when Hermione has stated that 
apperating/disapperating cannot be done inside Hogwarts (PoA)?

3.  Why does HP seem unsure of what is happening in the Pensieve, when he has 
spent time in Tom Riddle's memory - in the same vein are AD's memories edited 
to HP's consumption?

4.  I have noticed that in every adventure thus far it seems that HP faces 
the penultimate problem (the final problem always being going back to Privet 
Drive) alone.  Quirrel/LV, Tom Riddle/Basalisk, hundreds of Dementors, and 
LV, himself.  The edge he finds or advantage he presses is beyond his 
personal knowledge:  his mother's love and sacrifice; unswerving loyalty to 
AB; producing a Patronus only because he had seen himself do it (the old 
chicken and egg) and finally, the accidental incantatum when the wands 
collided.  

Just some conumdrums to pass a winter's night.

whirdy


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




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Fri Feb  8 04:32:47 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 15:32:47 +1100
Subject: Filch/Mrs Norris (FLIRTIAC) & still more LOLLIPOPS...
Message-ID: <001401c1b059$c91d40c0$4a0ddccb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 34877

Rita F:
> Yeah, peeves was on the map wasn't he?  But, I don't know if animals would be, remember Pettigrew is human, so he should be there--but would every toad, rat and owl?  I doubt it.  So, that would explain why Scabbers wasn't looked for or found on the map.<

Ahaaaaa, now this brings back my other (more outlandish (subversive, Elkins?) but nonetheless thought-provoking) shipping theory... FLIRTIAC (Filch's Lover Is Regretting Transformation Into A Cat).  Recall, ladies and gentlemen, that JKR casually mentioned that *Mrs Norris*, like Scabbers/Wormtail/Peter, turns up on the Map.  Suspicious, isn't it?  Not to mention Filch's overwhelming affection for her and extreme angst at his Squib status.  *And* chumminess with his fellow unlucky in love, Prof S. Snape!  Someone (Mr Norris, in a fit of jealous rage?  Maybe even Filch himself, in a rare, accidental, spontaneous successful attempt at magic?) permanently cursed Mrs Norris into cat form, I say.  Remember also, folks, that JKR has indeed spelled out that the cats in the series will be very significant...

What can I say, I like my SHIPs off the beaten waterways...

(Tabouli glances affectionately over the railings of the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS at the little FLIRTIAC dinghy bobbing nearby.)


>Cindy (crestfallen that Tabouli's LOLLIPOPS explanation did not 
>contain the word "ambush")

(Captain Tabouli croons a soothing sea shanty at the bloodthirsty Cindy).  OK, OK, we can wangle one in.  Never let it be said that the crew don't look after the lower deck.  I can fall in happily enough with the idea that trapping all his old Slytherin friends in an ambush was the task Snape had to accomplish to prove his loyalty to Dumbledore, though I find it a bit hard to imagine Snape ever having a close and cuddly circle of friends, even his "high school gang".

I see more of a "hang out together for safety in numbers" than a "supportive group of friends who look after each other out of emotional closeness".  And, perhaps, being secretly a little nervous of Snape's nasty streak and abilities.  I also imagine they would have disapproved of Snape having a crush on a Gryffindor girl (the Enemy!).  Perhaps, as George/Prince of Lies started to grow on Snape in his Death Eater days, they started to get suspicious about his ebbing stomach for the fight (and even more so when, unbeknownst to them, he'd started spying for Dumbledore), and wondered about the failure of Snape's usually swift and deadly efforts at Finding and Killing the Potters.  Maybe someone, whoever was closest to Snape in school (Avery?  Let's say Avery, for argument), had a growing suspicion not that Snape was a spy, but that lingering feelings for Lily were staying his hand.

As the year after Harry's birth went on, these suspicions grew and grew until Snape realised the game was going to be up, set himself up to have Avery inform the other Death-Eaters in the Slytherin gang and "catch" him red-handedly protecting the Potters, but in fact have a Polyjuice Snape who was really an Auror to lure them in, who, at the instant the Death Eaters turned up, gave the signal for an entire Auror contingent to Apparate in and grab the lot...

(Better, Cindy?)

Eileen:
> (Harry goes into Snape's office and) Finds a picture of Lily with flowers in front of it?
>/me begins to laugh hysterically. 

How about Harry, prowling about under the Invisibility Cloak one night, hears a sound as he is passing an empty classroom, and peeps in to see Snape kneeling in front of the Mirror of Erised, his face contorted with pain, his knuckles whitely clutching the frame, an anguished hiss of "Lily!" on his lips?

Perhaps it'll be revealed (in a quiet or even sniggering aside? bursting out under pressure?) directly to Harry by one of the characters who was around when Snape was in high school, namely Sirius, Lupin, Dumbledore, Hagrid or Snape himself.  Hagrid, perhaps?  We already know from PS/SS that Hagrid knows that Snape has a resoundingly good reason for hating Harry, but not one which is appropriate for 11yo ears.

We'll see.  Didn't JKR say that we're going to find out a lot more about Lily in OoP?  Someone's gonna speak up...

(btw, how seriously should we take the current rumour that OoP will be out in July?  On the OT list, people seem to have accepted this as fact, but I can't help feeling a lingering cynicism.  Convince me, someone...)

Marina:
> The romantic elements so far (we might also include Hagrid and Madam
Maxine) have been minor side bits; none of them have been presented as
the driving force behind a character's life-changing,
character-defining decision.  Also, the characters involved have all
been already presented to us as nice folks capable of sentimental
feelings, so adding another bit of warm fuzzies to them doesn't really
change anything.  Adding it to Snape, however, would be like putting a
single pink flamingo in the middle of a Gothic cathedral.<

**Exactly!!**  It's what hip young film-makers call "ironic juxtaposition"!  I'd actually call the lone-pink-flamingo-in-Gothic-cathedral another argument in *favour* of LOLLIPOPS.  Can't you see the beauty of Snape, bullying, nasty, surly Snape being the one character in the series with an all-consuming crush driving him?  It's glorious!  (and provides still more fuel for his burning resentment against the world in general and Harry in particular).

Marina:
> Snape was a spy for some time before
James and Lily died, so for a threat to Lily's life to become a
motivator for Snape changing sides, there would have to be a lengthy
gap between Voldemort deciding to kill the Potters and actually doing it.  


Lily's life wasn't under threat!  In fact, if V achieved his aim and killed only James and Harry, she would have been left free for Snape, making the side swap definitely a moral crisis not a simple "get the girl" scenario.  And heaping *more* angst on Snape.  Does he help with the effort to kill off Lily's husband and child and leave her free for him, or does he risk going spy to protect her happiness?  Poor, poor Snape.  What a position to be in.  Of course, if he *did* collaborate in killing Lily's husband and child, Lily would hardly fall into the arms of one of her killers, would she?  On the other hand, spying on her behalf is heroic.  If V succeeded despite Snape's efforts in killing James and Harry, the chances of her weeping on the shoulder of the daring spy who tried to save them is much better.  Except that Harry spoiled it all.

(this, btw, is the hard LOLLIPOPS line, i.e. Lily as primary motivation for both joining V *and* leaving V for D.  The all-day sucker version.  Chupa-Chup versions which allow for other, as yet undisclosed major factors are available at your local travel agency...)

Cindy's already covered the time factor admirably (Captain Tabouli pauses, her quill poised over a list of passengers under consideration for promotion to crew member, but suspects that Cindy won't apply).  Let me see if I have anything to add.

Out can(n)nons!

PoA Chapter 10, Fudge: "Not many people were aware that the Potters knew You-Know-Who was after them.  Dumbledore (...) 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 would be the Fidelius Charm."

PoA Chapter 19, Sirius: "YOU'D BEEN PASSING INFORMATION TO HIM FOR A YEAR BEFORE JAMES AND LILY DIED!  YOU WERE HIS SPY!"

GoF Chapter 30, Dumbledore: "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater.  However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall and turned spy for us, at great personal risk."

Now, we know that V was specifically after James and Harry, not Lily, from Tom's comment in the Chamber of Secrets.  The fact that V wanted to kill a specific defenceless baby suggests that he knew there was something special/dangerous to him about that baby.  Could be the ol' prophecy line (Trelawney's first, maybe... hmm, could she be an ex Death Eater too?).  If it was "Lo, the first born of James Potter shall dispatch the Dark Lord", V could have started his campaign as soon as James married (or even earlier), as soon as Lily fell pregnant (in which case topping Lily would have worked just as well), or after Harry was born.  Then again, it could equally have been "Yea, the babe born on the 31st day of July in the year 1980 will slay the Dark One", or "Seek ye the man-child sprung from the loins of the raven-haired four-eyes in Godric's Hollow (or wherever)".  We don't have enough information to judge.

However, I'd say V decided to kill the Potters not long after Harry's birth, and recruited Wormtail around this time (October 1990) to help him.  "A YEAR", right Sirius?  Which means that Spy Wormtail took a year to give V the Potters.  Not great going.  Probably a combination of Wormtail being an ineffective spy and Dumbledore's own spying network thwarting his efforts.  After all, if we are to believe Fudge, a spy tipped D off "at once".  Snape, perchance?  We know he was a Death Eater, in V's inner circle, privy to the plot.  It's not that much of a stretch to say that after Harry was born, and V heard the prophecy, V announced to his Death Eaters that killing the Potters was now his number one priority, triggering Snape's crisis and change of sides, and leading to Wormtail's recruitment.

Then James and Lily go into hiding for long enough for Dumbledore to observe that *someone* (Wormtail) seemed to be passing information on their whereabouts to V, making it almost impossible for them to hide. Enter the Spy Snape/Spy Wormtail face-off.  Wormtail has a tea party at the Potters' house, scurries to Voldemort, V announces their location at the Death Eater board meeting.  Snape hears this, scurries to D, warns him that it's time for James and Lily to move again.  And so it goes on for 11 months or so.  If that sounds too long to be plausible, think about it... Snape vs Wormtail.   Which do *you* think would have the edge there?

Eventually the worried D decides that this is too risky (perhaps because Snape's school buddies are getting suspicious, remembering his Lily crush?) and suggests the Fidelius charm.  Very difficult to perform, says Flitwick.  A further three week delay while they organise who's going to be the Secret Keeper, prepare the charm, hide Peter, etc.  Peter gets the Secret, and is squirrelled away in some special hiding place, where he uses head in the fire to tell V.  V, heartily sick of the year's delay, decides to go directly to the deed himself instead of announcing it to his inefficient Death Eaters.  Hence Snape doesn't find out and the Potters are doomed.

Peter scarpers, and isn't in his hiding place when Sirius comes to check on him, arousing terrible suspicions.  V hits Godric's Hollow, with well-known results.  Sirius arrives at Godric's Hollow minutes too late, then hunts Peter down.  The breaking of the Fidelius Charm after the Potters' deaths alerts Dumbledore and Snape to the fact that they have failed and both James and Lily are dead, the latter unnecessarily through protecting Harry who, miraculously, survived.  Cue for yet another few logs on Snape's eternal fire of angst...

Captain Tabouli (triumphantly unfurling some banners from the mast of her Ship...)


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




From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Fri Feb  8 04:27:42 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 22:27:42 -0600
Subject: Why the Veritaserum theory is all wet (and a bit back to the Sirius vs. Snap
Message-ID: <F2131tWAmHvze51hsJo0001c99c@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34878

Tex wrote:
> > managed to lure Sirius
> > away from his friends, and somehow arranged for Sirius to have
>amnesia
> > about the whole thing.
>
>No amnesia needed. Sirius probaably wouldn't admit he'd been
>had.

Agreed. Sirius would NOT admit that he'd been tricked, especially by Snape, 
if that is indeed the case (I might be totally be wrong about what we're 
even talking about. If that's the case, I apologise.)

>No way Snape is incompetent. I keep wondering why DumbDoor
>doesn't give him the DADA classes

In defense of the Headmaster (do we have an acronym for that?), I think that 
Snape is perfectly happy in his positions as Potions master. Awhile ago on 
this list there were posts about Snape and the DADA position (I'm thinking 
late December/early January, don't quote me on that). Something we said was 
that Lockhart was chosen in CoS because he was the *only applicant*. (I 
could be wrong about this too.) If Snape had wanted to be the DADA teacher, 
surely he could have gotten the job this year. Because as you said, Snape is 
not incompetent, which I agree with.

> >So, Snape has Sirius
> > under the influence of veritaserum.  Snape asks "where does Lupin
>go
> > each month?" Sirius replies "He goes into a tunnel under the
>Whomping
> > Willow.  The tunnel leads to the Shrieking Shack."
>
> > I can pretty much guarantee that the next words out of Snape's
>mouth
> > will be "*Why* does Lupin go to the Shrieking Shack?"  (Or
>something
> > to that effect.)  And, of course veritaserumed Sirius will have to
> > reply "Because Lupin is a werewolf."
> >
>Snape would likely have that figured out, already, like Hermione
>did.  Snape is probably the smartest of all JKR's characters,
>including HP.

I agree. He is a competent teacher and intelligent human, but his 
predjudices (against Harry and co., etc.) sometimes get in the way of his 
judgement and make him look like a...well, a not very nice and very 
judgemental person.

>If Sirus had done it because the was an impulsive kid and Snape was
>a git, I think JKR would have said so. But Sirius doesn't explain his
>motives to Harry, even when he says he did it.  And Siruis' motives
>are simply not explained in canon, so far.

I can see the prank from both Sirius and Snape's point of views. Being 
sixteen myself, I can see it from Sirius: wanting to get back as someone who 
is constantly trying to get you and your friends into trouble and not 
looking far enough ahead to see *all* the possible consequences of your 
actions; and Snape: wanting to get people into trouble who are constantly 
making fun of you and making you feel less than human (i.e. the girl who 
sits next to me in band, my entire L.A. Honors class...). I think this is 
very much a situation that is most difficult to pin blame on a single party.

Liz (who thinks Lupin must have been pretty hacked at Sirius after that 
prank)

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




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Fri Feb  8 10:16:01 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 10:16:01 -0000
Subject: Hermione, Dobby, Memories
In-Reply-To: <157.897991c.2994a16b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a408h1+73ll@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34879

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Whirdy at a... wrote:
> In the interests of brevity:
> 
> 1.  Why were there no repercussions when Hermione tore a page out of > an old book in the CoS.

I don't exactly remember that situation, but I'm asuming it's from the 
book were they get the polyjuice potion (and the page torn out is, 
indeed, the polyjuice). If that is the case, I doubt that many people 
read those books. Being in the forbidden section, with it's special 
permisson and so on, Students never get the opportunity, and the staff 
either is uninterested (Filch), know they are there but have no need to 
use it (most teachers), or knows it by heart and doesn't need to read 
it anyway (Snape). Anyway, whatever the reason, I don't think anyone 
will read the book for quite some time (maybe years), and by then 
no-one will be able to do anything about it. Then again, it is possible 
(being Hermione involved), that they did the same trick to get the book 
out again and replaced the page (with their magical cello-tape, or 
whatever)

 
> 2.  How could Dobby disappear at the end of CoS when Hermione has 
> stated that apperating/disapperating cannot be done inside Hogwarts 
> (PoA)?

Elves seem to be an exception in the realm of magic. Their powers must 
be pretty powerful indeed, for what we've seen, and they don't follow 
any of the rules that come attached for humans: no latin, no wand, no 
limitations. They seem to be able to apparate and disparate at will, 
whatever the circumstances, have magic powerful enough to attract the 
MoM to Harry's house (when getting there is a major feat for a 
magician, if all that Mrs. Figg bussiness is true), etc. Lately I've 
got the feeling that elves want to be enslaved just to have someone 
tell them what to do with their amazing powers. Borrowing from 
spiderman (although I imagine that it is older than that), "With great 
power comes great responsability". If the elves don't want that 
responsability, maybe they placed themselves into thralldom in the 
first place to have someone else decide. (If you want the complete 
theory, read Tamuli, by D. Eddings. I borrowed this theory from the 
Atan race)
 
> 3.  Why does HP seem unsure of what is happening in the Pensieve,
> when he has spent time in Tom Riddle's memory - in the same vein are
> AD's memories edited to HP's consumption?

It's not the sort of thing that happens everyday, so at first he was a 
little bit confused. You never know what a mystirious vase glowing with 
white light can do to you, especially in the wizard world, so Harry 
could just have got himself into a teleporter, or something else. 
Anyway, he does understand it's memory, as in Riddle's book, after a 
while. I don't think the memories had been enited for Harry's pleasure 
(although they could be, it's the sort of thing Dumbledore would do), 
just the ones that better reflected what Harry was worried about at the 
time from the finite possibilities present in the pensieve.

Hope that helps

Grey Wolf





From catlover at netwrx1.com  Fri Feb  8 02:54:10 2002
From: catlover at netwrx1.com (Kim Heikkinen)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 20:54:10 -0600
Subject: Hermione and library books (was Hermione, Dobby . . . )
In-Reply-To: <157.897991c.2994a16b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <4.3.0.20020207204956.00d80100@pop.netwrx1.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34880

Whirdy wrote:

>1.  Why were there no repercussions when Hermione tore a page out of an old
>book in the CoS.

I would like to know the answer to this, too. (I'm a librarian and the 
thought makes me shudder.) Hermione does NOT strike me as the sort who'd 
purposely deface a library book; look at how she observes other rules.

</me slaps JKR on the wrist for that bit of wrongness>

Kim, born to be a librarian

*******************************************************************
Kim Heikkinen catlover at netwrx1.com
"I may not be an explorer, or an adventurer, or a treasure seeker, or a 
gunfighter...but I am proud of what I am...I AM A LIBRARIAN!!!"--The Mummy
Don't blame me, I voted for Gore!  http://www.fight4choice.com
It's hard to be angry when a cat is sitting in your lap...
******************************************************************* 

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





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Fri Feb  8 11:19:20 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 11:19:20 -0000
Subject: Neville Longbottom. My hero. (Re: In defense of Hermione and Neville)
In-Reply-To: <a3uu9a+kjg5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a40c7o+itea@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34881

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
 
> > I mean, let's face it.  Neville's ability to find himself a date 
for 
> > the Yule Ball, his willingness to brave romantic rejection, makes 
> > both Ron and Harry look like a couple of utter wusses.  ;-)
> > 
> > The kid's a trooper.  He's got loads of courage.  It's just not 
the 
> > sort of courage that his culture values, sadly.

He's the bravest person of them all. Not because he isn't afraid of 
rejection (or is he?) - but because he repeatedly faces his worst 
fear, both public and alone.
 
> Or Harry, at first. But Harry's learning, and I'm sure the culture 
> will learn. I was so thrilled when Harry finally was shocked into 
> appreciating Neville. 

Harry has found Neville braver than himself ever since Neville told 
him his parents were in hospital - as they met the first time! It's 
just that doesn't know how to express himself.

As to - when Harry's praised, he either feels embarrased, or 
considers the praise given with sarcasm/irony. Harry can't even 
recieve such compliment, much less give one.

Harry thought Neville's rarely credited - but Harry himself was never 
credited as a child, only mocked...

> > (And I also desperately want to believe that the real reason that 
> > Neville took one of Hermione's S.P.E.W badges was *not*, as Harry 
> > thought, because he was browbeaten into it, but because she 
> convinced 
> > him that she was right about the House Elves -- and because he 
> really 
> > is *brave.*)
> 
> Of course, Harry's wrong. Since when was Neville brow-beaten into 
> anything? He's also a kind and compassionate soul, who would care 
> about the house elves's plight if he was convinced of it. Does it 
say 
> in the book if he wore the badge around? 

Neville's nice and caring. He may indeed feel for the house-elves... 
 
> > I mean, warrior courage is of course very admirable -- and it is 
> also 
> > exceptionally valuable, especially in a time of war -- but there 
are 
> > other types of bravery.  What about the courage of compassion?  
Or 
> of 
> > non-conformism?  Or even of principled pacifism?
>  
> Neville a la Frodo Baggins? For the record, I don't like principled 
> pacifism strictly, any more than any other principled wrong idea 
> (imho), so I'd probably flip my lid if Neville became an out-and-
out 
> pacifist.(Projecting my own beliefs on the story.) However, I can 
> really admire people who are pacifists in certain wars. This, 
though, 
> might not be it.
> 
> X: But Voldemort is going to kill us.
> Neville: We must practice pacifism.

Not like that. Neville would simply refuse to practise any kind of 
violence for any reason. Not even if he himself gets hurt to keep it.

> On the other hand, JKR could kick up plenty of unjust wars for 
Neville 
> to protest against. How about novels about Neville grown up? 
> 
> > 
> > What I would really like to see Neville do, once he "finds 
himself," 
> > is to serve as an exemplar of some *other* type of courage.  I 
want 
> > him to lead sit-down protests in front of the Ministry of Magic.  
> 
> Wouldn't it be fun to see Percy trying to remove him? Of course, 
> sit-down protests in the wizarding world would be a VERY dangerous 
> thing. Who knows what the Ministry would do you? A perfect 
opportunity 
> for Neville to be brave.

Yes, it'd be really fun. Because *both* would be convinced of doing 
the right thing!
 
He'd put up for human-rights - the right to be *presumed innocent* 
until proven guilty, for one - and gets Sirius Black, the Trio, 
Dumbledore - possibly all Gryffindors behind it being *practised* 
after the war(instead like they did to Sirius.. Not even trial!)
 
> > I want 
> > him to deliberately lose 200 points for Gryffindor as an act of 
> > protest against the institution of the House Cup. 
> 
> LOL. 

Oh, that'd be... more like Hermione's or F&G style than Neville's.
 
> >I want him to 
> > adopt an unusual dress style and not care what McGonagall has to 
say 
> > about it.  
> 
> Muggle clothes! In solidarity with Muggles. Or a tea-towel, in 
> solidarity with House-Elves!

Yes, Neville could do that... What about Neville going about NAKED to 
protest uniforms/in sympathy to Muggles/House-elves, all at the same 
time?
 
> >I want him to marry a Muggle.  
> 
> I want him to marry Ginny, but I like that touch. 

Yes, it'd be nice for Neville to get married... with Hermione!
  




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Fri Feb  8 11:28:59 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 11:28:59 -0000
Subject: Sirius & deaths (was: Sirius as a possible future traitor - Harry's point of View)
In-Reply-To: <3C631CCF.6A09ADD7@kingwoodcable.com>
Message-ID: <a40cpr+aui5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34882

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze <jdumas at k...> wrote:

> I've always felt that the "death that will be hard to write" will be
> Hagrid, Lupin, or Dumbledore. I never thought Sirius. I once posted 
a
> list (message 33158, "deaths, Ginny's fate") of the characters 
Rowling
> has stated were her favorites. The two that were mentioned the 
*most*
> times are Lupin and Hagrid. I'd think that a death that would be 
hard to
> write would be a favorite character...one to whom she is attached. 
She
> did mention the trio a lot, and I still have no idea if H/Hr/R are 
going
> to survive. Though, I have to say that if she kills Harry...she 
might as
> well go whack everyone and destroy the wizarding world...that would 
be a
> fun gory novel to read.
> 
> I hope that Sirius survives. I think that Harry would do well with
> Sirius still around, and I love the pair together. Very much a
> protector/father that Harry has never had. I would be very sad if
> Rowling whacked him 8-(
> 
> Anyway...that's my take on it!

Yes... Sirius dying... Good grace!
As Harry's strongest 'Happy thought' is 'Getting to Live with 
Sirius', Sirius himself has become the Symbol of Happiness to Harry!
Gosh... Without hope of GtLwS poor Harry might become suicidal! He 
might get over a death of person X if Sirius is there, but if it's 
Sirius who dies...




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Fri Feb  8 11:56:04 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 11:56:04 -0000
Subject: Why the Veritaserum theory is all wet (and a bit back to the Sirius vs. Snap
In-Reply-To: <F2131tWAmHvze51hsJo0001c99c@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a40eck+ph20@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34883

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Liz Sager" <ChaserChick at h...> wrote:
> I agree. He is a competent teacher and intelligent human, but his 
> predjudices (against Harry and co., etc.) sometimes get in the way 
of his 
> judgement and make him look like a...well, a not very nice and very 
> judgemental person.

And prejudice is not right. Presume innocent until proven guilty. 
We've seen Snape break against this all the time. Sirius would not. 
Not with his experience of being the falsely accused.
Only thing against this is Sirius vs. Krum, but...

He doesn't wish Harry to go near Krum because 1# It's a fact that 
*someone* is playing tricks and managed to get Harry into the tri-
wizard competitions *as fourth*, possibly to get Harry killed.
2# Unfair tricks ARE always played around the race.
3# Krum does know how to perform Unforgiveable Curses.
4# The One who put Harry's name into the cup, could as well put 
Imperius on Krum in order to get Krum kill/torture Harry...

Quite: Snape would do that - and it's very much possible that Snape 
already knew everything *except* how to calm Whomping Willow. Then he 
tricked Sirius to tell him. (Pretending he knew, acting smug, 
doubting if Sirius knew - so that Sirius would have been VERY 
provoked to tell him that!)







From finwitch at yahoo.com  Fri Feb  8 12:29:35 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 12:29:35 -0000
Subject: snape and sirius as a possible future traitor
In-Reply-To: <a3tiej+mcqj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a40gbf+6ukc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34884

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" <midwife34 at a...> wrote:
> 
> Having trust in someone is one thing, but knowing whether that 
trust 
> is valid is quite another thing. I'm just saying enough clues have 
> been thrown out there in the previous books, that if JKR wanted to, 
> she could develope Sirius as a character who betrays Harry. 

Except that 'he betrayed Potters/murdered - no he didn't/he's Harry's 
godfather - no, he's a betrayer after all...  It's simply too much 
moving to and back!

We've had *trusted* ones to turn out as Evil (Quirrell, 
Scrabbers/Wormtail, Crouch/Moody)
Bad-seeming ones turn out to be not guilty (Draco, Sirius)
And Snape... well, he's a total 'sitting on the fence' to me. He 
might be looking after his own interests (being allied to Both LV and 
AD until another one wins so he'll be in the winning side, no matter 
which one wins OR truly loyal to either of them, betraying the 
other...) Can't tell which side Snape belongs to, IF he belongs in 
the first place!




From fiatincantatum at attbi.com  Fri Feb  8 12:47:11 2002
From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 07:47:11 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius & deaths
In-Reply-To: <3C631CCF.6A09ADD7@kingwoodcable.com>
Message-ID: <3C63827F.93.73967C7@localhost>

No: HPFGUIDX 34885

On 7 Feb 2002 at 18:33, Katze wrote:

> I hope that Sirius survives. I think that Harry would do well with
> Sirius still around, and I love the pair together. Very much a
> protector/father that Harry has never had.

Unfortunately ... I think this is exactly why he might *not* survive.  Losing 
another father-figure would definitely be harder than losing Dumbledore, Hagrid 
or even Ron or Hermione.  Sirius is the closest thing to a parent that Harry 
has now and his one secure link to his real parents.  I can't think of a  
harder scene to write, myself.


Note to self:  Stockpile tissues before buying book 5 ... 


  
-- 
Fiat Incantatum 
fiatincantatum at attbi.com

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




From ffionmiles at hotmail.com  Fri Feb  8 13:54:17 2002
From: ffionmiles at hotmail.com (ffimiles)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 13:54:17 -0000
Subject: Sirius & deaths
In-Reply-To: <3C63827F.93.73967C7@localhost>
Message-ID: <a40la9+av72@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34886

In resposne to Sirius being the 'difficult death to write' - do you 
really think JKR would be that cruel to Harry?  Also, she has said 
somewehere that Sirius will be declared innocent before the end of 
the series, so I don't think he'll be dying in book5, or even 6 - but 
the horrid thing is that someone is going to die, and note in large 
writing to self - have copious amounts of tissues for all next 3 
books - and a whole tree full if Ron dies...
Ffi 




From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com  Fri Feb  8 14:14:06 2002
From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 08:14:06 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius & deaths
References: <a40la9+av72@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C63DD2E.FA679E43@kingwoodcable.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34887

ffimiles wrote:
> 
> In resposne to Sirius being the 'difficult death to write' - do you
> really think JKR would be that cruel to Harry?  Also, she has said
> somewehere that Sirius will be declared innocent before the end of
> the series, so I don't think he'll be dying in book5, or even 6 - but
> the horrid thing is that someone is going to die, and note in large
> writing to self - have copious amounts of tissues for all next 3
> books - and a whole tree full if Ron dies...
> Ffi

Hasn't she already been cruel to Harry? Killing his parents, having him
live with people who neglect practically every need (no meals for a
week!). She gave him Sirius back, and then ripped him away? And worse
yet...continually having to deal with Voldemort constantly trying to
kill him, and he's only 14! I think Rowling can be very cruel when she
wants to be. Strange that Harry hasn't given her a good talking to about
her intentions with his story!

I don't see her killing Sirius actually. She might, but I think it's
unlikely. However...if she doesn't kill Sirius, she might very well kill
Hermione or Ron. She has mentioned that she thought it strange that no
one seems to worry about Hermione. Oooh...red herring? Or perhaps she
has something ghastly in store for our heroine?

Early morning antics...

-Katze



From pen at pensnest.co.uk  Fri Feb  8 13:54:58 2002
From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:54:58 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Marauder's Map, Again (was: Re: Snape
 knew about the passageway)
In-Reply-To: <a3ufih+uqd4@eGroups.com>
References: <a3ua3a+6hog@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <l03130300b8898355d2a4@[161.33.128.215]>

No: HPFGUIDX 34888


>Eileen wrote:

>> > I would imagine they fall off the map. Otherwide,
>> > Gred and Forge would
>> > have had the entire faculty in Moaning Myrtle's
>> > bathroom immediately
>> > to find Ginny, even if it meant giving up their map.
>> > I'm sure the
>> > first thing they did when shedisappeared was check
>> > the map.

catalyna_99 wrote:

> As to the Marauders Map... I think it only shows what the
>Manufacturers knew were on the grounds...They found the secret
>tunnels, so they were able to put them in... They didn't know about
>the whereabouts of the CoS so it was left off.  (which means they were
> definitely active during their years at Hogwarts!)

I agree that the Marauders were only able to include the physical features
of the castle which they knew about.   The feature to make people register
on it seems like a clever but generic spell of some sort.

I have my own mental image of the Marauders' Map, which may not be
textually justified but which makes sense to me.

Hogwarts: a big place, yes?  Many floors, wings, goodness-knows-what.  Even
in their third year, Harry and co can still get lost in the castle.

We have no reason to believe that the Map is the size of a tablecloth.  In
dormant appearance it is just 'a piece of parchment'.  So...

It is my belief that the Map is in some way enchanted to show what the
holder is looking at.  No, bear with me.  If the castle and, to a limited
extent, the grounds are represented on the Map, they must be *tiny*.  It
therefore makes sense - to me! - that the Map somehow magnifies the
particular portion which is the focus of the map-reader's interest.  A
magical equivalent of Muggle devices which run a magnifying lens across a
map.  So if Harry is, say, standing next to the one-eyed witch, he is
concerned only to see whether there is anyone approaching his position.  He
isn't looking to see if a rogue band of Ravenclaws has invaded the
Slytherin common room, or if three of the Professors are engaged in dubious
practices in Trelawny's tea room.  So what he sees is what he is interested
in seeing.

This would explain quite handily why Gred and Forge didn't notice that Ron
was sharing his bed with another bloke.  They'd have no reason to scan the
dormitories while they were sneaking about, mischief-bound, so they would
never notice Pettigrew's name.  If Voldemort's name came up while he was
hiding in Quirrell's turban, they wouldn't have noticed that either unless
Quirrell happened to be in a place they were checking - which, presumably,
he wasn't, although there's no way to tell how the Map would have dealt
with such circumstances anyway.

Similarly, Harry usually seems to use the Map when he is alone; if Ron is
with him, Scabbers is not with Ron - and it never occurs to either boy to
check their bedroom when they are not there.  They *could* have kept an eye
on Crookshanks that way... hmm... assuming Crookshanks shows up on the Map.
(If he doesn't, Mrs Norris acquires new dimensions.)  But it's not
altogether surprising that Harry would check on Snape's office (and find
Barty Crouch) - he wouldn't want to be caught out by Snape.

Makes sense to me, anyway.

Pen

PS  Hello!







From ameliagoldfeesh at yahoo.com  Fri Feb  8 14:47:55 2002
From: ameliagoldfeesh at yahoo.com (ameliagoldfeesh)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 14:47:55 -0000
Subject: Hermione and the Library Book
Message-ID: <a40oer+pqth@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34889

      -- In HPforGrownups at y..., Whirdy at a... asked:
     <1.  Why were there no repercussions when Hermione tore a page
out 
of an old book in the CoS.

	I believe the page torn out was the one with the information about 
the Basilisk.  I was also a bit shocked she had done so and had
written a note on it to boot! :)   I figured she got away with it due 
to the fact she was working to stop the basilisk- a creature on the 
loose Petrifying students- a task a bit more important than being
nice to library books.   
      Besides if she had been Petrified with the whole book in her
hand I'm sure someone may have thought to look through it (well,
maybe) and shortened CoS by a few chapters and killed a bit of 
suspense.
 
    AJD 
        (who has been lurking for monthes and is confident that Madam 
Pince has repaired worse damage in a wizarding library)





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Fri Feb  8 14:55:20 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 14:55:20 -0000
Subject: FILK: Slytherin Strut
Message-ID: <a40oso+tulh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34890

Slytherin Strut
an HP filk
to the tune of "Stray Cat Strut" by the Stray Cats
Draco Malfoy on vocals and lead guitar, Crabbe and Goyle on bass and
drums (don't ask which is which, we all know they're interchangeable).

Slytherin strutting 'round Hogwarts school
See no need to obey the rules
To be called evil we're quite content
In fact, we take it as a compliment

Chorus:
Slytherin Strut, ambition and guile
We may be scum, but we're scum with style
We won't be thwarted, we won't be stopped
Gonna all be Death Eaters when we grow up

Always looking out for number one...
Doing whatever it takes to win
That's what it means to be a Slytherin

Strutting 'round the school, making Gryffindors shriek
We hate them all, 'cause they're stupid and weak
Gonna leave all our enemies trampled in mud
'Cause we got pure spite and we got pure blood

Repeat Chorus






From midwife34 at aol.com  Fri Feb  8 15:29:43 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 15:29:43 -0000
Subject: Will history repeat itself?
Message-ID: <a40qt7+65cg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34891

Lets take a look at the history of the adult characters in Hogwarts 
and see if there is some forboding there for our present trio of 
H/HR/R plus Neville.

Sirius- Twelve years in Azkaban for a crime he did not commit, now a 
fleeing fugitive.
Lupin-Grew up to be an unemployed drifter who blew his one shot at 
gainful employment by not confiding in D about the animagus abilities 
of his school friends, and by not taking his anti-werewolf potion on 
time.
Petegrew- need I say more....
James- Killed in action in the war against Voldy.

Now we have a new foursome, two of which have already suffered 
horrors as a result of the war with Voldy:

Harry-Orphan, raised by abusive relatives, still being hunted down by 
Voldy.
Ron- Poverty stricken as a result of his father's lack of success at 
the MOM because of his fondness for all things Muggle.Constantly 
struggling with his ego for his own sense of individuality in his own 
family.
Hermione- Over-acheiver and perfectionist, her worst fear is to fail 
at anything.
Neville- Traumatized by what was done to his parents at the hands of 
the deatheaters. Possible psychological block regarding his magical 
abilities out of fear. Not to mention the effects on his personality 
by being raised by an overbearing grandmother. 

Based on the history of the four adult characters and the outcomes 
they suffered as a result of the war with Voldy, what will become of 
the new four warriors-in-training? One of them will be the one to 
surely die, if history repeats itself. It doesn't look like a happy 
ending for any of them, but since JKR is ending the series here, at 
least maybe we will find closure. 

Jo Ellen








From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Feb  8 16:21:04 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 16:21:04 -0000
Subject: Hermione and library books (was Hermione, Dobby . . . )
In-Reply-To: <4.3.0.20020207204956.00d80100@pop.netwrx1.net>
Message-ID: <a40ttg+3uib@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34892

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kim Heikkinen <catlover at n...> wrote:
> Whirdy wrote:
> 
> >1.  Why were there no repercussions when Hermione tore a 
page out of an old
> >book in the CoS.
> 
> I would like to know the answer to this, too. (I'm a librarian and 
the 
> thought makes me shudder.) Hermione does NOT strike me 
as the sort who'd 
> purposely deface a library book; look at how she observes 
other rules.
> 
> </me slaps JKR on the wrist for that bit of wrongness>

No, of course Hermione would NEVER commit such a heinous 
act. 

<speculation>
It must have been Tom Riddle who tore the page out, 50 years 
before. Hermione found it in a dusty old stack of loose leaves 
marked "to be repaired". Writing "pipes" on the page was a 
desperate last ditch act committed in the last few heart stopping 
moments, while Penelope fumbled desperately for her mirror 
and the hissing sound drew closer, closer....</speculation>

Pippin, who will forgive Hermione for writing on a page that didn't 
belong to her only  if Hermione was being menaced by a twenty 
foot bloodthirsty snake at the time.




From porphyria at mindspring.com  Fri Feb  8 20:08:38 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:08:38 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups]  Responsibility for the prank (was the Veritaserum theory)
In-Reply-To: <F2131tWAmHvze51hsJo0001c99c@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <A38FFF54-1CCF-11D6-AF64-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34893

On Thursday, February 7, 2002, at 08:27 PM, Liz Sager wrote:

> Tex wrote:
> > > managed to lure Sirius
> > > away from his friends, and somehow arranged for Sirius to have
> >amnesia
> > > about the whole thing.
> >
> >No amnesia needed. Sirius probaably wouldn't admit he'd been
> >had.
>
> Agreed. Sirius would NOT admit that he'd been tricked, especially by 
> Snape,
> if that is indeed the case (I might be totally be wrong about what we're
> even talking about. If that's the case, I apologise.)
>

I'm wondering why all this speculation about whether Snape somehow 
provoked Sirius into sending him into the passageway with Lupin. I 
thought the book was pretty clear that it was Sirius's idea. Lupin is 
actually the one who tells the story, in Sirius's presence (ch.18, PoA):

"Sirius here played a trick on him which nearly killed him, a trick 
which involved me--"

To which Sirius replies that it served Snape right for sneaking around 
always trying to get them expelled.
Lupin continues, adding "Sirius thought it would be -- er -- amusing, to 
tell Snape all he had to do was prod the knot..."

Lupin clearly lays the blame for this on Sirius' peculiar sense of 
humor. He sounds annoyed here, as well he should be since he was an 
unwilling participant. But if there were extenuating circumstances, 
wouldn't Sirius admit to them, if only to excuse himself in Lupin's 
eyes? That is, if he could have said that Snape somehow browbeat or 
tricked him out of the information, then that might make Lupin less 
disgusted in Sirius. Furthermore, Sirius seems to jump at any chance to 
portray Snape as creepy and slimy, so wouldn't it support his argument 
if he could also accuse Snape of literally forcing the prank into 
existence through cunning or a dirty trick of his own? I think the fact 
that Sirius never contradicts Lupin's account and can only counter that 
Snape deserved it for being annoying and meddling proves that Sirius 
does consider the prank to have been his idea in the first place.

> Liz (who thinks Lupin must have been pretty hacked at Sirius after that
> prank)

Yeah, imagine coming back into human form and realizing you've eaten one 
of your classmates. Then what would have happened to him? Off to the 
werewolf pound.

~~Porphyria


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





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Feb  8 19:25:19 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 19:25:19 -0000
Subject: A little George, a little Lollipops, a whole lotta Snape
In-Reply-To: <a3v07t+qvhf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a418mv+rjfj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34894

Eileen wrote:

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> > I think, judging from the way Snape's manner of speech 
changes 
> > when he talks to Filch, that Snape grew up in a great 
wizarding 
> > household  but as the offspring of servants. 
> 
> I don't have the books handy, but how does Snape change his  
manner of 
> speech? 

Snape's usual style is formal, polished and artificial, almost as if 
he'd learned it out of a book. The contrast is most noticeable in 
the staircase scene in GoF ch.25 where Snape says "I don't give 
a damn about that wretched poltergeist..." to Filch and switches 
styles "It is unimportant" when Moody comes along.

> 
> >Perhaps his parents 
> > were Squibs, or, more romantically, he's the offspring of a 
secret 
> > liason between the master of the House and a Squib parent.
> 
> Well, it depends what your idea of romantic is, I suppose. 

I meant in the broad literary sense of a fiction characterized by 
mysterious and extraordinary events.

> >It would help if Snape has some vampire talent for 
> > getting through locked doors, into libraries perhaps.
> 
> Where does he get the vampire ability in this scenario?

>From his mother, who came over from Europe as a child 
refugee. The vampire would have been her father.  RL England 
took in a number of children just before World War II  broke out. I 
am theorizing that maybe wizarding Britain did the same. All 
sheer speculation, of course.

> 
> >and it seems that 
> > Nagini has to be fed a wizard now and then.
> 
> Does it say that in the books?

Sort of. Harry dreams of the interview between Voldemort and 
Wormtail, in which Voldemort says he is going to feed Harry to 
the snake instead of Peter. Also, shadow!Cedric wants his body 
rescued. I felt there might be more than sentimental reasons for 
that. Presumably if Nagini is simply hungry she could feast on 
ordinary flesh, but Voldie seems to want her supplied with 
wizards.

> 
> >We also know that 
> > Voldemort's earlier reign was marked by disappearances.
> 
> I don't remember disappearances, but people coming home 
and finding 
> their families, friends dead. Is there a source for this?

 Dumbledore to Harry, chapter 30, GoF. "The years of 
Voldemort's ascent to power were marked with disappearances. 
Bertha Jorkins has vanished without a trace..." Dumbledore 
goes on to say that Crouch and Frank Bryce are also missing. 
We know what happened to Crouch's body, but I think Nagini 
may have gotten  Bertha and Frank. Frank is not a wizard, but 
feeding him to Nagini would at least dispose of him.

  Snape realizes that Voldemort 
> > and his Inner Circle are the enemies of wizards as well as 
> > Muggles, and switches sides.   
> 
> One thing I couldn't take was if Snape switched sides on a 
racist 
> basis. There. 
> 
Well, I'm not saying Snape is a racist now, or at least not a 
nihilistic violent racist, though he  may have some issues with 
Lupin and Hermione. It's hard to tell, just as it's hard to tell 
whether the Weasley twins really don't have anything against 
Dudders for being a Muggle. We have a character, Crouch Sr., 
who began to do very bad things for good reasons, so why can't 
we have a character who begins to do good things for a bad 
reason?  I agree there must have been some event which 
persuaded Dumbledore  that Snape's conversion was genuine. I 
think it might have something to do with Fawkes. Dumbledore 
says that only someone truly loyal to him could summon the 
phoenix. Perhaps that's what Snape did. 

> Half suspects? Here's a theory that will make Snape a little 
less 
> slimy in the situation.
> 
> It's near the end. They are about to cast the Fidelius charm, but 
Lily 
> is still worried. So, she comes up with a back-up plan. She 
proposes 
> it to Severus, who is on Dumbledore's side at that point. He 
isn't 
> enthusiastic about it, but she begs him to do it, and says that 
the 
> Fidelius charm is sure to work, but if it fails..... 
> 
> So, then he goes to Voldemort with his horrible proposal. "Kill 
the 
> Potters if you like, but spare Lily for me." Voldemort is not just 
> amused but as he needs Snape for the research agrees. 

I don't like the idea of Snape knowing about Fidelius. That 
seems too much of a risk. Besides, I like the rather LeCarre 
(waves at Alex) scenario where Lily makes her offer to Snape not 
knowing he is actually on her side.  Snape can't tell her, and she 
can't tell him that she is planning to disappear and  he's never 
going to see her again, no matter what happens. But that's just 
me. I don't think we can get away from sliminess in a spy story. 
"Think of the person who lives in disguise, Who deals in secrets 
and tells naught but lies." The best we can do, maybe, is try to 
shift all the sliminess to Voldemort and Peter. Judy's Ewww 
theory does that. But if we say that Snape had noble motives 
from the beginning, then his redemption is less meaningful, 
IMO.

Pippin




From hollydaze at btinternet.com  Fri Feb  8 20:44:51 2002
From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:44:51 -0000
Subject: Dobby amd Memories
References: <157.897991c.2994a16b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <006601c1b0e1$7764a7e0$f54c073e@j0dhe>

No: HPFGUIDX 34895

> 2.  How could Dobby disappear at the end of CoS when Hermione has 
> stated that apperating/disapperating cannot be done inside Hogwarts 
> (PoA)?
I never really saw that as Apperating. We have already been told that House elves have their own set of magic (that is "quite powerful" but they are only allowed to sue it if their masters tell them so (usually) and have to punishthemsevles if they use it without permission. I don't think it was apperating but some form of Elve transport, different from Wizard apperating but the same in apperance. perhaps they are born with the ability to dissapear in one place and reapear somewhere else, while wizards have to learn it or whatever. I personally feel that this "haouse elf magic" will be important in future books. I don't knwo why but I just feel it can't have been mentioned just as a side plot. Dobyy can't have been introduced just as a way of attempting to keep Harry from school (we could have done without that, it wouldn't have changed the story much other than harry wouldn't have lost the bones in his arm becuase the bludger wouldn't have attacked him) and Although Winky was important to some extent, she was not exactly a MAJOR feature. I just feel house elves have been introduced for a reason thatw e don't know yet.


> 3.  Why does HP seem unsure of what is happening in the Pensieve, 
> when he has spent time in Tom Riddle's memory - in the same vein are
> AD's memories edited to HP's consumption?
He only seems unsure to begin with, then he works out that it is the same as Riddle's memories. I think this is a case of having to explain to the reader what is going on without it sticking out like a saw thumb. If JK had jsut written "Harry had fallen into Dumbeldore's memory" we would all be asking "how on earth did Harry work that out?". I think it makes more sense the way it is ebcuase I know that I would be doing the same thing as Harry if it had been me. it owuld have taken a while but I would work it out in the end.


HOLLYDAZE!!!




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




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Fri Feb  8 19:35:50 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:35:50 -0800
Subject: Hermione and JKR, was Re: Sirius & deaths
In-Reply-To: <3C63DD2E.FA679E43@kingwoodcable.com>
References: <a40la9+av72@eGroups.com> <3C63DD2E.FA679E43@kingwoodcable.com>
Message-ID: <9257383230.20020208113550@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34896


Hi,

Friday, February 08, 2002, 6:14:06 AM, Katze wrote:

> However...if she doesn't kill Sirius, she might very well kill
> Hermione or Ron. She has mentioned that she thought it strange that no
> one seems to worry about Hermione. Oooh...red herring? Or perhaps she
> has something ghastly in store for our heroine?


I wondered about this possibility, too, ever since finding
out that Hermione is a representation of JKR herself, in the
stories.
This type of character (Mary Sue?) tends to either die
heroically or get married to the "hero" in inexperienced
hands.
They are usually almost perfect (is Hermione?) and have unusual names.

I wonder if JKR is going to follow these lines, or go a
totally different way.

Before joining a few discussion groups and reading
interviews with JKR I never even considered she might
kill off any of the three kids, but now I'm very worried.

My main enjoyment in movies/tv shows and books is the
friendship and interaction of the main characters and it
ruins it for me, if one of them goes.

While I can see that JKR wants to keep things realistic
(people do die in RL, even the ones you love most), I don't
want to really see this in the things that I enjoy, too :}

And I think there's already way too much death in children's
books/movies.
There's hardly a movie where both parents are alive, it
seems.

But then, my ten year old daughter always tells me I'm way
too sensitive anyhow <g>.

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





From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Fri Feb  8 20:39:30 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 20:39:30 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A little George, a little Lollipops, a whole lotta Snape
Message-ID: <F85DnxY5ksqQFxnPagM00004ed0@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34897

Quoth Pippin:
>I don't like the idea of Snape knowing about Fidelius. That
seems too much of a risk.

I think there may be canon to back up the idea that Snape knew. I don't have 
PoA with me, but I read through the Shrieking Shack scene yesterday and 
there's a bit where Snape is yelling at Harry that he would have been well 
served if Snape had let Black kill him. He'd be 'like father, like son' in 
that he 'refused to believe that Black would betray him'

Makes me think that Severus found out that the Secret Keeper was a DE, but 
didn't know it was Peter, just that he'd spilled the beans, and that James 
refused to believe Severus.

J

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





From ftah3 at yahoo.com  Fri Feb  8 21:13:51 2002
From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 21:13:51 -0000
Subject: Snape; Lupin's 'mistakes' again
In-Reply-To: <F85DnxY5ksqQFxnPagM00004ed0@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a41f2f+q3l1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34898

Jake Storm wrote:
> I think there may be canon to back up the idea that Snape knew. I 
don't have 
> PoA with me, but I read through the Shrieking Shack scene yesterday 
and 
> there's a bit where Snape is yelling at Harry that he would have 
been well 
> served if Snape had let Black kill him. He'd be 'like father, like 
son' in 
> that he 'refused to believe that Black would betray him'
> 
> Makes me think that Severus found out that the Secret Keeper was a 
DE, but 
> didn't know it was Peter, just that he'd spilled the beans, and 
that James 
> refused to believe Severus.

Well, I would gather that a lot of folks in the wizarding 
world 'knew' about Black's status as secret keeper, and his 
betrayal.  After all, it looked like Black betrayed the Potters, 
which led to Voldy's downfall, and then killed Pettigrew who 
valiantly tried to stand up to him, and ended up in Azkaban.  It 
would surprise me a great deal if Snape and everyone else *didn't* 
know that piece of fiction, considering the all around impact of 
those events!  

What I got from that bit is that it's canon evidence that Snape 
believed that Black had been Potter's secret keeper, and at some 
point, most likely in retrospect (imho), figured it should have been 
obvious to too-smart-for-his-own-good Potter that nasty rotten Black 
would betray him....  :)

For the record, I agree that I wouldn't like for Snape to have known 
about the Fidelius.  Too pat.

On another subject, has anyone speculated that as for Black having 
suspected Lupin as being the spy, there might have been some reason 
related to, I dunno, Lupin's personality that suggested it?  I.e., 
something other than, say, general distrust of werewolves?  

Firstly, it seems potentially a little odd that Black would suspect 
Lupin just because of general prejudice against werewolves.  He's 
been friends with Lupin, even helped him run around in dangerous 
form; and Lupin seems a little surprised that Black suspected him, 
indicating that Black had at least never acted with overt prejudice 
against Lupin on the basis of simple werewolfness.

Secondly, was thinking about this in conjunction with people 'making 
excuses' for Lupin's mistakes, especially his admission that he and 
the other Marauders 'laughed' about some of the close calls they had 
when letting wolf-Lupin run loose; his questionable method of 
teaching Neville to overcome his fear of Snape; forgetting to take 
his potion; and being quite ready to kill Peter. 

Was thinking...the 'Jekyll & Hyde' type is one way of looking at 
Lupin; but what if he's less split down the middle?  What if he's 
actually a bit...wolfy?  He acts mild-mannered and nice, because he 
*is* generally mild-mannered and nice; but even the mild-mannered 
nice people can have dark emotions and urges.  For Lupin, his dark 
emotions/urges actually take substance, in that he turns into a 
fierce, snarling, killer beast during the full moon.  So, what if he 
never actually gets rid of that aspect of himself?  I.e., it doesn't 
go away, just wanes (like the moon); and, along those lines, what if 
he really doesn't think of certain things as 'wrong'? Humiliating 
someone who really gets on his nerves isn't a bad thing; scaring a 
few locals could be bad if he'd actually hurt them, but he didn't so, 
la!  And as the change draws rapidly nearer, and the dark side of him 
begins to surface, the *last* thing he wants when he sees enemies 
near (on the Marauder's Map) is tie himself down with a conscience-
invoking wolfsbane potion.

I'm exaggerating a little, above.  Because I don't see it as 
evilness, just a bit of "I'm a mild-mannered teacher, not a 
saint"ness.  And if he had a bit of a wicked streak, which he only 
let his close friends see, it would make more sense for Black to 
think that Lupin was the type to maybe be amenable to Voldemort's 
ways and thus become a spy.  Whereas, on the other hand, Pettigrew 
would maybe have been constantly with the "oh yes, I totally agree 
with you, James/Sirius, terrible, terrible what the Dark Lord is 
doing" in his little yes-man way, and also being a big puss, thus 
precluding suspicion.

Just wondering out loud.  Hope I was somewhat coherent.

Mahoney




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Fri Feb  8 21:17:13 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 21:17:13 -0000
Subject: A little Lollipops, a whole lotta Snape (also, apparating)
In-Reply-To: <F85DnxY5ksqQFxnPagM00004ed0@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a41f8p+dtal@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34899

Quoth Pippin:
>>I don't like the idea of Snape knowing about Fidelius. That
>> seems too much of a risk.

and Jake Storm replied:
> I think there may be canon to back up the idea that Snape knew. I 
> don't have PoA with me, but I read through the Shrieking Shack scene 
> yesterday and there's a bit where Snape is yelling at Harry that he 
> would have been well served if Snape had let Black kill him. He'd be 
> 'like father, like son' in that he 'refused to believe that Black
> would betray him'

I have to agree with Pippin here (we're co-authors of this theory 
after all!)  I don't think Snape was told about the Fidelius charm at 
the time the charm was used; he had no need to know, and it could have 
gotten back to Voldy.

I think Snape found out about the Fidelius charm *after* the Potters 
died.  In the scene at the Three Broomsticks, we find out that many 
adults at Hogwarts know about the Fidelius charm, and think Sirius 
Black betrayed the Potters.  Of Hagrid, Fudge, McGonagall, Flitwick, 
and Rosmerta, all of them appear to have heard the story except 
Rosmerta.  So, I'd expect Snape to know.  If nothing else, I'd expect 
Dumbledore to tell him why his spying failed to protect the Potters 
(assuming Snape was the one who revealed that Voldy was after the 
Potters.) 

Of course, if Snape loved Lily, that would explain why in PoA he was 
so ticked off that James trusted Sirius, and so irrational in his 
hatred of Sirius.

Speaking of the posibility that Snape warned Dumbledore of the risk to 
the Potters, if Snape was the indeed the one who warned them, then 
this is another point in favor of my Eeeewww theory (that Voldy was 
saving Lily for Snape.)  We need a reason why Voldy tells Snape about 
the threat to the Potters in the first place.  If Voldy knew that 
Snape wanted Lily, I can just see the following scene.  Voldy calls 
Snape in, and tells him, "Snape, my slippery friend, I promised you'd 
be rewarded for supporting me. And so you shall!  I have decided to 
kill James Potter! Lily will soon be yours!  Bwaa-ha-haa-ha-haa!"

All right, I admit it, another possibility is that Voldy told Snape 
(or whoever warned Dumbledore) of his plan to kill the Potters because 
Voldy is a compulsive braggart. 

On the topic of house elves apparating -- I agree this is some other 
sort of magic than that done by wizards.  House elves are not the only 
ones who can teleport around Hogwarts, however -- in CoS, Fawkes 
teleports to the Chamber of Secrets.  However, House elves presumably 
do not appear in a burst of flames.  Also, it seems that Fawkes 
doesn't actually burn was he does this, otherwise he'd have to start 
all over as a baby phoenix (phoenixling? phoenixlet?)

-- Judy




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Fri Feb  8 21:22:04 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 21:22:04 -0000
Subject: Why the Veritaserum theory is all wet
In-Reply-To: <a3srus+7p11@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a41fhs+9iua@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34900

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> "It served him right," he sneered. "Sneaking around, trying to 
> figure out what we were up to... always trying to get us
expelled..."

"Served him right?"  When do we ourselves make that comment?
Usually it's when something happens to somebody who deserves it,
_But_that_we_didn't_do_ourselves._  Theory or no therory, we
don't know all there is to the Prank story, and need to hold 
judgement on both Snape and Black until we get it.

Thing is, D'dore expressly credits James with saving Severus' life.
I'm not so sure he would have done that if James had simply
chickened out of a deadly prank.

Tex





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Feb  8 21:24:24 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 21:24:24 -0000
Subject: A little George, a little Lollipops, a whole lotta Snape
In-Reply-To: <F85DnxY5ksqQFxnPagM00004ed0@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a41fm8+7iro@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34901

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jake Storm" <that1guy_hp at h...> 
wrote:
> Quoth Pippin:
> >I don't like the idea of Snape knowing about Fidelius. That
> seems too much of a risk.
> 
> I think there may be canon to back up the idea that Snape 
knew. I don't have 
> PoA with me, but I read through the Shrieking Shack scene 
yesterday and 
> there's a bit where Snape is yelling at Harry that he would have 
been well 
> served if Snape had let Black kill him. He'd be 'like father, like 
son' in 
> that he 'refused to believe that Black would betray him'
> 
> Makes me think that Severus found out that the Secret Keeper 
was a DE, but 
> didn't know it was Peter, just that he'd spilled the beans, and 
that James 
> refused to believe Severus.
>

My idea is that Snape didn't find out  about the Secret 
Keeper stunt until after Voldemort's downfall. He could have 
warned Dumbledore that he thinks Sirius is the spy and that 
James shouldn't trust him, without knowing anything specifically 
about the Secret Keeper.   It would only be after Voldemort's 
downfall, when Snape and Dumbledore are comparing notes 
trying to figure out what happened, that Snape finds out about the 
spell.

Pippin




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Fri Feb  8 21:33:21 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 21:33:21 -0000
Subject: Too EWWW and mature to be True-Re: More LOLLIPOPS, Timeline, WL3
In-Reply-To: <a3vc31+7kfq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a41g71+7ace@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34902

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
>  I don't think it would have to be too dark, though, for Harry to 
> discover that his mother and Snape had some history. JKR is 
> able to suggest some quite dark things without ever being 
> explicit. Turning Mrs. Roberts upside down, for example, and 
> having Draco say that Hermione was in like danger of showing 
> her knickers to the world.
> 
> I could see Voldemort taunting seventeen year old Harry at some 
> point and saying, "I don't believe I've ever told you why I offered 
to 
> spare your mother's life. Severus wanted her. Loved her, I 
> suppose, if you want to call it that. No, Severus is not really 
nice. 
> You had better leave him to me." though JKR would probably not 
> steal  from Tolkien quite so directly.

Which got me thinking. 

Tolkien used the "ewwww" plot at least twice in his fiction. Someone 
has already Saruman/Wortongue/Eowyn, and in the Silmarillion there's 
Morgoth/Maeglin/Idril. Both times he carried it off pretty well, so 
that an 8 year old could listen to both stories without being 
disturbed. 

As you say, it doesn't have to be long, involved, and specific. First 
of all, younger children don't even have an idea of what is so 
"ewwwish" about the plot. Like many other people I know, I was read 
"The Lord of the Rings" when I was about 8 years old, and it didn't 
occur to me what particularily Wortongue wanted Eowyn for (though 
objectively I knew about the facts of life and could probably have 
given you a correct answer if asked). Just another piece of evidence 
that he was bad. When I was 13, and I was reading the books, the 
"ewwwness" of the situation struck me, and I began to realize why 
Eomer had lashed out at Wortongue like that, why Eowyn was so 
depressed etc. I mentioned it to my friends and realized they hadn't 
picked up on it themselves either. Ever since then, I've noticed many 
movies, and books since time immemorial, include a theme of the badguy 
who's trying to get the woman. 100 years ago, people gave their 12 
year olds books like "Ivanhoe", for heaven's sake, which is pretty 
explicit about what is going on re: Rebecca and the bad guy (what was 
his name?) And yet, kids read it and don't get disturbed. Chasing 
after the heroine is just a mark of being bad (often cartoonishly 
bad). I think it's us adults who go "ewwwwwwwww" b/c we are more aware 
 of what it all has to do with real life. 

Eileen

PS. This is further confirmed by having gone a few days ago to 
someone's house. Her kids were all in front of the TV watching 
Disney's "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" breezily, as Frollo sings about 
how he lusts for Esmeralda. Asked them what was going on. The bad 
guy's plotting to kill the good guys, because he loves Esmeralda, was 
the answer. Didn't disturb them at all, while I was wondering, "This 
is a Disney movie?"




From Edblanning at aol.com  Fri Feb  8 21:38:27 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 16:38:27 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Where's the Canon? (Part One) 
Message-ID: <136.8af3d0c.29959f53@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34903

Elkins ( a brief extract):

> >That said, however, I think that we would both agree that there _is_ 
> > such a thing as 'canonical purity,' and that some interpretations 
> > adhere to it far more strictly than others.  Even on subjects about 
> > which canon is silent, we generally do recognize certain theories 
> as 
> > more 'plausible' -- by which we mean, 'more likely to be what the 
> > author intended' -- than others.  We recognize the existence of a 
> > thing called 'Spirit of Canon,' a spirit which can be either 
> > respected or violated.  Because the Spirit of the Canon is a thing 
> of 
> > nuance and inference and tone, it may be difficult to define in 
> > precise terms, but we believe in it nonetheless.  It's a lot like 
> > pornography that way -- we may not know exactly what it is, but we 
> > recognize it when we see it.  ;-)
> 

I think Elkins' original posts would make a good basis for a PhD thesis. This 
is just a footnote in comparison.

This discussion touches on something I have been thinking about for a while: 
how much  control does a writer have or can they expect to have of their  
work once it is in the public domain? How much should we worry about 'what 
the author intended'?

If I draw an analogy from music, it is easy to see how a composer's original 
creation is continually reinterpreted, even reinvented, in the hands of 
different performers who may be motivated very differently. Take Bach, for 
instance. An artist such as Harnoncourt may strive to recreate as closely as 
possible the experience of hearing Bach performed as it was at the time of 
composition, with precise attention paid to the details of contemporary  
technique. Then again we have the idiosyncratic performances of someone like 
Glen Gould or yet again, the versions of his works by the Swingle Singers or 
even on Moog synthesizer. Does it matter if music is performed as originally 
heard? To some purists yes, to others no. Is it *possible* to recreate the 
composer's intentions exactly? Well, probably not, as the experience of music 
is individual to the hearer/ performer and everyone's interpretation will be 
different. Does this *matter*? My answer would be 'no' . Once a composition 
has been written down, once it is in the public domain, it takes on a life of 
its own. The strength of a great composition is that it *is* capable of 
bearing different interpretations. We may like some better than others, but 
all are valid.

This too, is what we do with literature. We all interpret differently. We 
all, because of our different life experiences, our different characters, 
different world-views, view things differently. Now as in music those 
interpretations hang around precise, pre-ordained notes in literature, our 
interpretations hang on the precise use of words. Those words tell us 
*everything* we are entitled to know in one sense, (they form the 'canon') 
yet just as the notes of a composition are fixed, complete, they are not 
complete without interpretation. Literature is meaningless without a reader, 
just as music is dead without a performer. Individual, variant 
interpretations of 'canon' are inevitable and legitimate. But as Elkins says, 
there is something we can recognise as the 'spirit of canon'. I can accept 
both Harnoncourt and the Swingles as legitimate interpreters of Bach, because 
in the performances of each I can recognise a similar spirit of performance, 
one that I would find lacking from many old-fashioned 'classical' 
performances with over-heavy orchestration and dirge-like tempi.

But the Harry Potter canon provides us with two particular problems, both of 
which can be expressed the same way: the canon is not complete.

First of all, we are only half way or so through the story, which leads to a 
lot of interpretation necesarily being speculative. We know that we have had 
to reinterpret so much that has gone before with the benefit of hindsight, so 
we are constantly on the lookout for situations and characters whom we will 
have to reinterpret as future books come out. We hypothesise because as yet 
we cannot know.

The other problem, which I think is worse, is that we know that JKR has a 
deal of information on the characters and events surrounding the story that 
she is simply witholding from us. This is where the musical analogy breaks 
down. Even when the published canon is complete and we could argue that the 
books are there for *our* interpretation, that anything which can be 
reasonably argued from the published canon is a legitimate interpretation, we 
will still have the uncomfortable feeling that there really is *one* correct 
interpretation. JKR appears to desire an exceptionally  high degree of 
control over her creation and she lets us know about it with those 
tantalising glimpses of her notebooks in which she has detailed all those 
backstories etc. 
We could contrast this with, for example Charlotte Bronte. Now to be honest, 
I don't know if she filled notebooks with the back stories of Mrs Rochester 
etc, but for the purposes of this argument, I shall suppose she didn't. She 
certainly didn't publicise any. This then leaves the field clear for a writer 
such as Jean Rhys to come along and write a perfectly legitimate prequel 
filling in Mrs Rochester's story. The same has recently been done of course 
for Rebecca. But I am left (sorry, all you writers of fanfic, this isn't a 
criticism) with a problem when it comes to filling in the backstories for the 
HP characters. In the normal way of things, I would regard it as open season, 
particularly once the published canon is complete and yet, no, there *is* 
already a 'canon' backstory  for example, for Snape. There *is* a canon 
reason for his defection from the DEs. There *is* a canon reason why 
Dumbledore trusts him. There *is* a canon reason for his treatment of Harry. 
But it is witheld, and unless JKR decides to publish her notebooks in some 
form, we will never know. 

Here, I think we have two options. One is to ignore the unpublished canon, in 
which case anything goes, as long as it is not in contradiction of the 
published canon. The other is simply to accept that there are things we may 
never know. We tend to talk about these  characters and events with such 
passion, with such a willing suspension of disbelief, that they seem to be 
real. Real people hold many mysteries.They are always intriguing, but it is 
not always appropriate or possible to probe them. 

In thinking about this earlier today, I realised what it is about this series 
and this forum that grips me.
My passion in life is archaeology . We are doing exactly what archaeologists 
do, taking tiny fragments of evidence of what people have done, little clues 
they have left behind, and from them compiling great theories . In the 
process archaeologists tread a fine line between evidence and inference, they 
necessarily use imagination to fill in the gaps, yet all the time knowing 
that, like JKR's unpublished canon, there are *real* answers to the questions 
they are asking, answers which in many, if not most cases they will never 
know for certain. And in the process they have the most wonderful and 
spirited arguments. Just like us.

Eloise 
(who really ought to be getting back to early dynastic Egypt, but thinks 
she'll go to bed instead after this slight piece of intellectal exertion.)




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




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Fri Feb  8 21:32:36 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 16:32:36 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius Suspecting Lupin
References: <a41f2f+q3l1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000601c1b0e8$216edf20$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 34904

    In response to those who have been speculating upon *why* Sirius might have suspected Lupin as the traitor, well, it seems quite obvious to me.  At the time, it was apparent that dear old Voldy was getting insider information.  Who has this information?  Well, Dumbledore, the Potters, and the Potter's inner circle (I.E. Sirius, Remus, Peter).  Sirius obviously wouldn't have suspected Dumbledore or the Potters or himself (^_^ new theory!! James and Lily were spying on THEMSELVES for LV!!! *maniacal laughter* no.  JK. ahem.) So that leaves Remus and Peter.  Peter is weak, agrees with everything the other Marauders say, etc. etc.  Doesn't really seem like spy material, does he? So that leaves Remus.  

:( Too often people equate "weak" with "harmless".  

laura     


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





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Fri Feb  8 21:49:43 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 21:49:43 -0000
Subject: Why the Veritaserum theory is all wet
In-Reply-To: <a41fhs+9iua@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a41h5n+fbmc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34905

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" <jbryson at r...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> > "It served him right," he sneered. "Sneaking around, trying to 
> > figure out what we were up to... always trying to get us
> expelled..."
> 
> "Served him right?"  When do we ourselves make that comment?
> Usually it's when something happens to somebody who deserves it,
> _But_that_we_didn't_do_ourselves._  

Not at all.  "I did it to him, and it served him right" is a perfectly
valid and sensible construction; I've both used it and heard it used
any number of times.

Also, if "Served him right" meant "He deserved it, but I didn't do
it," then Sirius' use of the expression would imply that he *knows*
he'd been Veritaserumed.  In which case, why the heck doesn't he just
say so?

> Theory or no therory, we
> don't know all there is to the Prank story, and need to hold 
> judgement on both Snape and Black until we get it.

We may not know all, but what we do know is perfectly
straight-forward, non-contradictory, and mutually agreed upon by all
the still-living characters who were involved.  Lupin says, "Sirius
played a trick on Snape."  Sirius says, "yeah, and it served him
right, the nosy git."  Snape says "you were all  in on it and I'll
hate you forever."  There's nothing here that requires extra levels of
complication.  The information we're missing about the event is
internal -- what were all the people involved thinking?  -- rather
than external.


> Thing is, D'dore expressly credits James with saving Severus' life.
> I'm not so sure he would have done that if James had simply
> chickened out of a deadly prank.

James didn't chicken out -- that's just Snape's skewed interpretation
of it, because Snape believes that James was in on the prank.  But
James wasn't in on it; he didn't find out until after it happened. 
The he went to save Snape -- not because he chickened out, but
because, unlike Sirius, he realized the potentially deadly
consequences.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Fri Feb  8 21:57:38 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 21:57:38 -0000
Subject: A little George, a little Lollipops, a whole lotta Snape
In-Reply-To: <a418mv+rjfj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a41hki+qmo4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34906

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:

> Snape's usual style is formal, polished and artificial, almost as if 
> he'd learned it out of a book. The contrast is most noticeable in 
> the staircase scene in GoF ch.25 where Snape says "I don't give 
> a damn about that wretched poltergeist..." to Filch and switches 
> styles "It is unimportant" when Moody comes along.

OK, I see. Interesting.


> Sort of. Harry dreams of the interview between Voldemort and 
> Wormtail, in which Voldemort says he is going to feed Harry to 
> the snake instead of Peter. Also, shadow!Cedric wants his body 
> rescued. I felt there might be more than sentimental reasons for 
> that. Presumably if Nagini is simply hungry she could feast on 
> ordinary flesh, but Voldie seems to want her supplied with 
> wizards.

Good explanation for Cedric's last request. Of course, the perennial 
reason for not leaving your friend's body out is to stop it from being 
eaten by something.

> Besides, I like the rather LeCarre 
> (waves at Alex) scenario where Lily makes her offer to Snape not 
> knowing he is actually on her side.  Snape can't tell her, and she 
> can't tell him that she is planning to disappear and  he's never 
> going to see her again, no matter what happens. But that's just 
> me. 

Interesting. Would add to all the tragical misunderstandings about 
that period. Lily thinks that Snape has totally gone beyond 
redemption. 

>I don't think we can get away from sliminess in a spy story. 
> "Think of the person who lives in disguise, Who deals in secrets 
> and tells naught but lies." The best we can do, maybe, is try to 
> shift all the sliminess to Voldemort and Peter. Judy's Ewww 
> theory does that. But if we say that Snape had noble motives 
> from the beginning, then his redemption is less meaningful, 
> IMO.

Right. Let me get all the scenarios straight in my head.

1. It's Voldemort's idea. He tells Snape, who disgusted, starts 
thinking about what is going on with his life.

2. It's Lily's idea. She makes the proposal to Snape (with an eye to a 
last ditch defense of Harry), who agrees, and passes the idea onto 
Voldemort. Snape could have a variety of motivations in this version 
for agreeing. 

3. It's Snape's idea, and he's a greasy, slimy loser.

I like 1 and 2. 

Eileen




From ftah3 at yahoo.com  Fri Feb  8 22:03:35 2002
From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 22:03:35 -0000
Subject: Sirius Suspecting Lupin
In-Reply-To: <000601c1b0e8$216edf20$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a41hvn+o2h5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34907

Laura wrote:
>     In response to those who have been speculating upon *why* 
Sirius might have suspected Lupin as the traitor, well, it seems 
quite obvious to me.  At the time, it was apparent that dear old 
Voldy was getting insider information.  Who has this information?  
Well, Dumbledore, the Potters, and the Potter's inner circle (I.E. 
Sirius, Remus, Peter).  Sirius obviously wouldn't have suspected 
Dumbledore or the Potters or himself (^_^ new theory!! James and Lily 
were spying on THEMSELVES for LV!!! *maniacal laughter* no.  JK. 
ahem.) So that leaves Remus and Peter.  Peter is weak, agrees with 
everything the other Marauders say, etc. etc.  Doesn't really seem 
like spy material, does he? So that leaves Remus.  
> 
> :( Too often people equate "weak" with "harmless".  

Well, I think that for Sirius it would have to be *more* than a 
matter of subtraction.  That's a major accusation to be leveling 
against a friend, without being able to justify it by evidence based 
on the friend's precedented actions or opinions, you know?  I think 
it would also have to be more than a matter of prejudice based on 
Lupin's being a werewolf, because if his werewolfery exists in a 
vacuum surrounded by *only* good qualities, Sirius would have no 
reason to suspect Lupin at all.  

Er.  In a hurry, not making sense, shutting up.

Mahoney




From Edblanning at aol.com  Fri Feb  8 22:07:35 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:07:35 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione and library books (was Hermione, Dobby . . . )
Message-ID: <39.223eb0cb.2995a627@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34908

In a message dated 08/02/02 16:23:35 GMT Standard Time, foxmoth at qnet.com 
writes:


> 
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kim Heikkinen <catlover at n...> wrote:
> > Whirdy wrote:
> > 
> > >1.  Why were there no repercussions when Hermione tore a 
> page out of an old
> > >book in the CoS.
> > 
> > I would like to know the answer to this, too. (I'm a librarian and 
> the 
> > thought makes me shudder.) Hermione does NOT strike me 
> as the sort who'd 
> > purposely deface a library book; look at how she observes 
> other rules.
> > 
> > </me slaps JKR on the wrist for that bit of wrongness>
> 
> No, of course Hermione would NEVER commit such a heinous 
> act. 
> 
> <speculation>
> It must have been Tom Riddle who tore the page out, 50 years 
> before. Hermione found it in a dusty old stack of loose leaves 
> marked "to be repaired". Writing "pipes" on the page was a 
> desperate last ditch act committed in the last few heart stopping 
> moments, while Penelope fumbled desperately for her mirror 
> and the hissing sound drew closer, closer....</speculation>
> 
> Pippin, who will forgive Hermione for writing on a page that didn't 
> belong to her only  if Hermione was being menaced by a twenty 
> foot bloodthirsty snake at the time.
> 
> 

Not only that, but she kept Moste Potente Potions out for the whole of the 
brewing of the Polyjuice potion (surprised one can keep a restricted book out 
for so long) *and* gets the page all splodged. Tut tut!

Eloise


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




From mdawson.design at dial.pipex.com  Fri Feb  8 22:04:58 2002
From: mdawson.design at dial.pipex.com (Marjorie Dawson)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 22:04:58 -0000
Subject: The  Map etc.,
References: <a3ua3a+6hog@eGroups.com> <l03130300b8898355d2a4@[161.33.128.215]>
Message-ID: <003401c1b0ec$a9292160$749abc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 34909

catalyna_99 wrote:

> As to the Marauders Map... I think it only shows what the
>Manufacturers knew were on the grounds...

 and Pen's subsequent discussion.

Catalyna argues as I would for the Marauders' Map.  Obviously, if everything was included on it, it would be simply be too huge and as the Map is, basically, a very elaborate spell/charm it is, crucially, limited by the knowledge and the imagination of the perpetrators. 

It is logical that in order to "see" the map in any detail there must be some magical method of zooming in on certain areas.  I so rather like the idea of tiny little inky figures moving about with names attached - too cute - as our cousins across the ocean would say!   

Finally, as for Snape knowing about the tunnel, forget it - do you think - knowing him as you do - that he would let such knowledge go unused?

FR


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




From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Fri Feb  8 22:17:34 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 22:17:34 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione and library books (was Hermione, Dobby . . . )
Message-ID: <F1249Afw5VmKldz8axX00012830@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34910

>From: Edblanning at aol.com
>Not only that, but she kept Moste Potente Potions out for the whole of the
>brewing of the Polyjuice potion (surprised one can keep a restricted book 
>out
>for so long) *and* gets the page all splodged. Tut tut!

Well, maybe the Hogwarts library has a more liberal checkout policy. You can 
keep the book until another student needs it, but with a one week minimum, 
for example. After that, you get a nasty owl from Madam Pince.

As for the messy pages...that's harder to excuse...her only real excuse is 
that she's working towards a very noble goal and sacrifices must be made.

J

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




From theennead at attbi.com  Fri Feb  8 22:33:45 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 22:33:45 -0000
Subject: Snape & the DEs, Reprise (Long, of Course)
In-Reply-To: <a2i7q2+sv06@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a41joa+doq0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34911

More on Snape and his affection (or lack thereof) for the Death 
Eaters, and other related topics.

----
"Did Snape Betray His Friends?"


Well, of *course* he did!  

He was passing on information to the enemy.  Even if there was no 
Great Bloody Ambush of the sort that Cindy seems to be slavering for, 
there can be no question at all that he was betraying his colleagues.

As to whether or not he still considered those colleagues "friends" 
at the time, though -- or, for that matter, whether he *ever* 
considered those colleagues "friends"...well!  That's the question, 
now, isn't it.

And Cindy, if it will make you feel any better, I have always firmly 
believed (on the basis of no canonical evidence whatsoever) that the 
information Snape passed on to Dumbledore led Evan Rosier straight
into the ambush in which he was killed by Alastor Moody.  

There now.  Does that satisfy a bit of that blood lust?  

No?  Still thirsty?  

Well, then why not add a chaser of Wilkes?

Now me, I prefer to take my Wilkes all over the hands of Frank 
Longbottom -- but I guess that Snape can have some too.  Plenty to go 
around.

I dunno about this throwing every single DE whose name we've ever 
heard into one massive ambush, though.  That's really kind of pushing 
it, don't you think?  I doubt Snape even *knew* half those guys.

----
Snape's Old Gang Roll-Call


About Sirius' comment that Snape "was part of a gang of Slytherins
who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters," I wrote:

> BTW, that "nearly all" is interesting, isn't it?...Who, one wonders,
> were the abstainers?

Eileen and Rebecca both felt that I had misinterpreted Sirius' 
comment, and that the six people he mentions (Snape, Rosier, Wilkes, 
Lestrange, Lestrange, and Avery) were in fact the entirety of the 
gang.  While both of them agreed that they would very much *like* it 
for there to have been abstainers, neither of them believed that this 
was what the author had intended.  Rebecca wrote by way of 
explanation:

> I thought "nearly all" meant all but possibly Snape -- Sirius isn't
> sure if Snape actually became a DE when he spoke this.

Interesting!  It never even *occurred* to me to read "nearly all" 
that way.  I had just automatically assumed that there were one or 
two others, whose names he never bothered to mention, who were (or 
who Sirius believed to be) innocent.  But given that this was 
apparently a highly idiosyncratic way to read the line, I will 
concede that the six of them probably *were* the entirety of the 
gang.  

<sigh>  Pity, really.  I, too, liked the idea of abstainers.

I must disagree, however, with Eileen, who wrote:

> As an aspiring member of L.O.O.N., I must point out that Sirius is 
> proved wrong in his estimation of the gang.  After all, he doesn't 
> know Snape became a death-eater, and many of "the Slytherin gang,"
> acquitted, turned out to be Death Eaters after all.

Much as it frightens me to tangle with a future LOONy, I do feel 
compelled to defend Sirius here.  He was *not* "proved wrong in his 
estimation of the gang."  He freely admits that he doesn't know about 
Snape, and he quite correctly identifies all of the other five 
members he mentions as Death Eaters.  He isn't wrong about them at 
all.  He's dead right about them.

Not that this is all that great a feat of perspicacity on Sirius' 
part, of course, since by the time that he's speaking, the only one 
of them he could possibly have guessed wrong about (other than Snape, 
about whom he confesses his ignorance) is Avery.  All of the others 
have already been condemned.  But Sirius *does* show proper insight 
into Avery's character: he's resolutely unimpressed with Avery's 
acquittal, and as it turns out later, his skepticism was justified.

But *about* Avery...

----
Poor Misunderstood Avery


Eileen, again:

> Yes, what *about* Avery?. . . .Re: Avery being so obliging.  So,
> what if Snape feels that several of his friends have joined him in 
> abandoning their wicked ways?

Weeeeellll...

<slow smile>

I suppose I'll take this opportunity to point out that Avery may very 
well have done just that.  For all we know, he may have been leading 
a blameless -- nay, even exemplary -- life these past thirteen 
years.  There is absolutely no evidence in canon to the contrary, and 
rather a few suggestions to support...

<sigh>

No.  Nope, sorry, just can't do it with a straight face.  Not today.  
So I'll just go through the major points in Avery's favor, shall I?

It is possible that although too frightened or too weak-willed to 
refuse the summons to the graveyard, Avery nonetheless really had, as 
Eileen put it, "abandoned his wicked ways" in the thirteen years 
since V's fall.  He has, at any rate, certainly kept a low profile.  
Sirius has no idea what he's been up to, and we have never once heard 
his name mentioned in connection with any contemporary Dark activity.

And boy, he sure does crack fast when Voldemort starts accusing his 
DEs of ideological infidelity, doesn't he?  I mean, the poor bastard 
just goes all to pieces.  All of the Death Eaters are quite naturally 
frightened, but Avery would seem to be tottering on the edge of 
nervous collapse: his reaction to Vold's suggestion that some of his 
DEs might now owe their true allegiance to Dumbledore is not merely 
fearful, it is quite literally hysterical.

Which kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?  Just what *has* Avery 
been up to these past thirteen years, that he should be in such a 
nervous state, or that he should so readily identify himself as one 
of those guilty of ideological compromise?  

Something that he thinks Voldemort wouldn't approve of, that's for 
sure.  Something disloyal to the Death Eater cause.  Something 
ideologically unsound.  Something...well, dare we even suggest it?  
Something that we the readers *would* approve of?  Something that 
might perhaps even be *virtuous?*

And he would seem to respond instinctively to guilt, as well.  His 
behavior is consistent with that of someone well-accustomed to 
thinking of himself as guilty, someone who has a long personal 
history with shame.

I also find it interesting that when Sirius is listing all of the 
members of Snape's old Slytherin gang, he mentions Avery *last.*  You 
would think, wouldn't you, that the criminally-minded Voldie-
supporting Dark Wizard whom you *know* to still be at large would be 
the very *first* name that would leap to your mind?  Particularly if 
you were Sirius, already sufficiently convinced that Dark Dealings 
Are Afoot that you've come all the way back to Britain to keep an eye 
on your godson?  Sirius did go out of his way to warn Harry about ex-
DE Karkaroff, and that was even before he got so worried that he 
returned.  He's in a highly paranoid state of mind.  But the 
possibility that Avery might be a live threat doesn't even seem to 
occur to him.  He does not, for example, say: "Well, there was that
son-of-a-bitch Avery, who got off scot-free -- he's still at large 
somewhere, so you want to watch out for him: if you hear anything 
about him snooping around Hogwarts or anything like that, I want you 
to let me know about it *immediately* -- and then there were Rosier, 
and Wilkes..."

Nope.  Nope.  Doesn't work that way.  Avery's the very last member of 
the gang that Sirius thinks to mention, and his tone when speaking of 
his acquittal is one of simple disdain.  In Sirius' mind, Avery just 
isn't a threat.  He barely even registers on the radar.  Which leads 
me to suspect that Avery was always a bit of a lightweight in the Big 
Bad Evil department.  Maybe he was never all that terrible, as DEs 
go.  

Really.  Avery's not all that bad.  He's just...high-strung.  ("Not 
half high _enough_," I can hear Cindy growl somewhere in the 
background.)  Certainly not at all Tough.  And far too easily led.  
But not evil to the *core.*

(I somehow imagine Avery to have been the Pettigrew of Snape's gang --
you know, that weedy little kid who was always hanging around in the 
background, laughing like a hyena, while Rosier and Wilkes beat up on 
some smaller boy.  But that's just me.)

I could, I suppose, go on now to spin a highly compelling portrait of 
poor, reformed, guilt-laden, hysteria-prone ex-DE Avery, a man who 
has spent the last thirteen years of his life desperately trying to 
atone for past wrongs by volunteering in soup kitchens and patting 
small puppies on the head and making generous donations to pro-muggle 
causes, a wizard who despite his high birth and sterling intellect 
has resolutely avoided the public limelight due to a (quite proper) 
sense of shame and humility and contrition, a man who has only in the 
past few years finally begun to emerge from the shadows of his past 
and regain some degree of self-respect and social confidence...only 
to have all this absolutely *shattered* by the return of Voldmort...

I could.  But I don't really have the stomach for it anymore, 
somehow.  Maybe because I've already 'fessed up to the fact that I 
don't really believe for an instant that it's at all what the author 
intended, which frankly, takes nearly all of the fun out of the 
game.  I'm sure, though, that you can fill in all of those blanks 
yourself, if you're so inclined.

I do, however, still seem to be able to work up some enthusiasm for
my objection to Rebecca's characterization of poor Avery as 
a "grovelling toady," so...

<Elkins whips out her shiny new S.Y.C.O.P.H.A.N.T.S badge and pins it 
to her chest with an ill-concealed grimace of self-loathing.  Having 
thus assumed her role as the founder of the Society for Yes-men, 
Cowards, Ostriches, Passive-Aggressives, Hysterics, Abject Neurotics 
and Toadying SYCOPHANTS, she prepares to pontificate.>

Now, I do realize that to many people all Grovelling Coward types 
look exactly alike, but I assure you that we members of 
S.Y.C.O.P.H.A.N.T.S recognize a great range of diversity within our 
ranks, and while such distinctions may seem insignificant to others, 
they matter a great deal to *us.*  So.

Avery is *not* a toady.  *Nott* is a "Toady."  What Avery is is 
a "Nerveless Hysteric."

When you obsequiously declare yourself to be prostrating yourself at 
someone's feet -- while all the while remaining in a steadfastly 
upright position -- *that* is being a Toady.

When you *literally* prostrate yourself at someone's feet, while 
simultaneously shrieking for forgiveness at the top of your lungs and 
shaking so violently that even a tightly-bound fourteen-year-old boy 
with some rather serious problems of his own to contend with can 
still detect the motion from all the way across a darkened graveyard, 
on the other hand...

Well, that's not "toadying," precisely.  That's...er...

<winces delicately>

That's what we here in S.Y.C.O.P.H.A.N.T.S. prefer to refer to as 
a "crisis of nerves."

A minor point, perhaps.  But one to bear in mind, particularly should 
you ever find yourself invited to our annual Minions' Ball, where 
ignoring such niceties can *really* set off the Whining Neurotics -- 
and that's just no fun for anyone, not even for the Sociopathic 
Sadists seated at the next table down.

<Nodding with satisfaction at having cleared *that* matter up, Elkins 
unpins her S.Y.C.O.P.H.A.N.T.S badge and thrusts it back into her 
pocket.>

----
Slytherin/DE Loyalty


Rebecca wrote:

> I do concede your description of how the current Slytherin
> students exhibit loyalty toward each other, maybe they aren't
> all so bad....But if we are talking about Snape's attitude 
> towards the former DEs, then we only have the adults to go by,
> and if we are talking about his former schoolmates, then we have
> even less to go by.

I think that maybe you misunderstood my point in bringing up the 
Slyth kids' tendency to close ranks.  My point there was not so much 
to argue that the Slyths "aren't all so bad" as it was to point out 
that there is some canonical evidence to suggest that House Slytherin 
as a whole places a high value on in-group loyalty.  It seems 
therefore not unreasonable to me to assume that both Voldemort and 
the DEs (themselves mostly Slytherin grads) would share that 
aesthetic.

I think that it's clear from the graveyard sequence that Voldemort 
does place a very high value on loyalty, and as I argued previously, 
the vast majority of the DEs who faced trial would seem *not* to have 
named names to the ministry.  

What I was attempting to suggest there was that Snape, as Slytherin 
and Death Eater, was likely to have himself been instilled with a 
very strong sense of in-group "my House right or wrong" style 
loyalty, which must have been the very devil to overcome, and which 
might well have left behind residue in the form of a lingering sense 
of attachment to old colleagues and classmates.

Eileen wrote:

> It's funny, actually, since one would think that ambition might
> not be best served by loyalty.  On the other hand, if you look 
> at real-life politics...there's a huge loyalty factor.

I think that's because under most circumstances, ambition *is* well-
served by loyalty.  Careful alliance-building is a far sounder long-
term strategy than indiscriminate backstabbing.

Also, Slytherin would seem to be not only the House o' Ambition, but 
also the House o' Entitlement.  It's the Old Boy network of the 
Potterverse.  Old Boy networks run on the engine of in-group loyalty;
it's how they function.


----
Murderers Who Play Bach


I wrote:

> We hear a great deal about Rowling's statement of intent to show
> how genuinely *bad* evil is in these books, and I laud that 
> sentiment.  But evil is also *complicated,* and there are times
> when I find myself wishing that Rowling would run a little further
> with that particular ball.

To which Rebecca responded:

> Again, I'm trying to look at what interpretations have canonical
> evidence, and I think she's pretty dead set on portraying L.V.'s
> stance as just plain evil.

I quite agree.  But that wasn't precisely what I meant by "evil is
complicated."  I meant something more along the lines of what 
Susanna/Pigwidgeon37 was getting at, when she donated that marvellous
German saying:

"In my country, a lot of murderers play Bach."

I have no problem with the portrayal of V's stance as Just Plain Evil.
How many nice things can you think to say, after all, about genocide
and gratuitous torture?  I do have some problems, however, with the 
portrayal of every single one of V's followers as not only "just 
plain evil," but also as utterly lacking in any redeeming qualities, 
or likeable characteristics.  Leaving aside for the moment the 
obvious philosophical objections, I also find it just plain 
*boring.*  Shades of grey make for interesting reading.  Noble Heroes 
vs. Totally Worthless Evil Villains is just kind of a yawn, IMO.

Of *course* evil is bad.  That's tautological.  But the nice old guy 
who lives next door and helps you jump-start your car on cold winter 
mornings sometimes turns out to have been in the SS, and the person 
who called the ambulance when you had your stroke and then stayed with
you and held your hand until the paramedics arrived turns out to be a
Klan member, and the professional torturer goes home at the end of 
the day and agonizes over his kid's poor math grades.  That's what 
makes evil complicated.  And that's also what makes it *scary.*

And for what it's worth (and to get back to the canon), I do think 
that Rowling did some very nice work with that in GoF.  I liked the 
crowd of drunken revellers at the QWC, whose numbers *grow* as they 
parade their way through the campground indulging in their spot of 
muggle-torture.  Those people weren't all Death Eaters, not by a long 
shot.  I liked the hissing jeering mob at the Pensieve trial.  For 
that matter, I also liked it when the twins hissed at Malcolm 
Baddock, and I loved it when Harry started fantasizing, in rather 
explicit detail, about exactly what it might be like to use the 
Cruciatus Curse on his least-favorite professor.  And, naturally, I 
always like Snape.

*Those* were the sorts of things I was referring to, when I said that 
I wished that Rowling would "run a little further with that 
particular ball."  And I actually *do* think it not unlikely that she 
will, in future volumes, go even further in that direction, thus 
making the notion of somewhat more 3D villain characters than we've 
seen so far not an altogether subversive suggestion.  The books have 
certainly been heading in that direction; by volume six or so, we 
might even get a few players of Bach who are *not* (as Snape is) 
working for the forces of Good.

I certainly *hope* so, at any rate.

----
Snape and the Slyth Kids


Eileen suggested that underlying dynamic of the popularity of "Snape 
always loathed the other members of his old Slytherin gang" might 
also be the one responsible for the popularity of "Snape doesn't 
really favor the Slytherins at all -- it's all an act."  

She wrote:

> Could this be connected to people's unwillingness to believe that
> Snape really favors Draco, or likes Lucius?

More on Lucius later, but as for Draco?

I know that it's an unpopular opinion around here, but I think that 
Snape really *does* favor Draco and the Slytherins.  Yes, I suppose 
that it might also be in his best interests as a possible future spy 
to stay on good terms with all the Slyth kids' DE Daddies, but I 
don't really believe that's the primary reason he favors them.  I 
think he favors them primarily because Slytherin is his House, and 
because Snape is loyal to House Slytherin in spite of the fact that 
an appalling number of its Old Boys went bad during the last big 
wizarding war.

It's by far the simplest explanation.  It seems perfectly in-
character to me.  And I don't really see very much in canon either
to contradict it or to support a different reading.  

As for Draco, I do think that Snape genuinely likes him -- or at the 
very least strongly identifies with him.  The kid seems to be good
at potions, he has a vicious and spiteful sense of humor, he's 
partial to hexes and curses, he's prone to envy, and he not only 
hates Harry Potter but has also been trying to get him in trouble or 
expelled ever since their very first week of classes together.  I  
mean, really.  What's not to like?  ;-)

And yes, Eileen.  I *do* think that it's the same dynamic at work.
I think you hit that one right on the head.

But as for Lucius...

----
Snape and Lucius, What Snape Knows, and That Sudden Movement


Eileen wrote:

> I myself proposed that Snape was the one who supposedly brought
> Lucius back to the light side, and was astonished that very few
> people could even conceive of Snape not being on to Lucius, of
> Snape liking Lucius.

and in another post:

> So, what if Snape feels that several of his friends have joined
> him in abandoning their wicked ways?  I've always read that part 
> where he starts at Malfoy's name that way, though I know most people
> disagree with me, and insist that Snape sees through Malfoy's 
> "conversion" the whole time.

Okay.  First things first.  "Snape being on to Lucius" and "Snape
liking Lucius" are NOT the same thing!  This goes all the way back to 
the point of my original delurk: it is possible to like someone while 
still recognizing that they are committing evil acts.  These are two 
separate questions.

First question: did Snape ever believe Lucius' claims of innocence?  
Or if not, had he since come to believe that Lucius had truly 
reformed?

Sorry, Eileen, but I just can't imagine Snape falling for either one 
of those notions.  He's not a gullible man.  Far from it: he is 
suspicious and misanthropic and sees the worst in everyone, and he 
also has an excellent sense for when people are lying to him.

Also, as Rebecca pointed out, *everyone* knows that Lucius Malfoy is 
guilty as sin.  Even Fudge seems to know it, deep in his heart of 
hearts.  If Snape's managed to kid himself about Lucius Malfoy's true 
nature all this time, he'd have to be a master of self-delusion, and 
I don't really think that he's that at all.  

Lucius Malfoy may be able to pour on the charm when he wants to (at 
least, I'm *assuming* that he can, although honestly, we've yet to 
see him even once behave the least bit charmingly in canon), but 
he's not exactly *subtle,* is he?  I mean, the man all but walks 
around with a sign reading "Unrepentant Death Eater" stapled to his 
forehead.  

Rebecca wrote:

> While he seems like he'd be wise enough to keep still about his
> feeling and cunning enough to fool people, I'm not sure I see
> real evidence of that.

Yes.  That *is* an annoying thing about Lucius as a character, isn't 
it?  Rowling obviously *intends* for us to read him as clever and 
conniving and devious and manipulative, but she doesn't actually 
succeed in portraying him that way at all.  The Lucius Malfoy we 
actually see in canon comes across (to me, at least) as an utter 
moron who couldn't even dissemble his way out of a parking ticket.  
He's about as subtle as a brick, and when Voldemort addressed him in 
the graveyard as "my slippery friend," my first inclination was to 
snort in derisive laughter.  It's a bit...frustrating, that.

So had Snape thought that Lucius Malfoy had reformed?  No, I don't
think so.  I just can't find a way to make myself believe that.

But does Snape *like* Lucius?  I honestly don't know.  It's not 
inconceivable to me that he might on some level like him.  Lucius is 
wealthy and elegant and well-spoken, and he's also quite good-
looking, if you go in for those chilly blond aristocratic types.  
And who knows?  Maybe he's also a maestro on the harpsichord.  ;-)

Or, as Eileen suggested:
 
> ...and if Draco gets his sense of humour and gift of mimicry from 
> his father, [he's] probably a very funny person to be with....And, 
> I'm sure Lucius throws enjoyable parties, at which people 
> say, "Could you do that imitation of Dumbledore?" and all tee-hee-
> hee away, without meaning any real harm. /me thinks of Fudge. 

<spits coffee all over the keyboard>

You know, the image of Cornelius Fudge, one or two past his limit, 
quietly giggling over his cocktail at some elegant Malfoy soiree, 
while Lucius perfoems cruel-yet-accurate impersonations of Dumbledore 
has got to be the most sympathetic thing I have ever imagined about 
*either* of those two characters.  *Ever.*

(Although sadly, I suspect that Lucius Malfoy has far too much 
invested in his own gravitas to entertain his important houseguests 
in such a clownish fashion.  A pity, really.)

As for Snape's Sudden Movement (which is beginning to remind me far 
too much of That Goddamned Gleam In Dumbledore's Eye), I just can't 
agree with Rebecca's idea that it was a "gesture of fury."  I can't
really offer any firm canonical reason for rejecting this 
interpretation, I can only say that it just didn't *look* like fury
to me.  It looked to me like a gesture of shock, or of dismay, or of 
alarm, or even of warning -- but not at all like one of fury.

I also don't like any of the explanations people have come up with 
for Snape's Sudden Movement that do not link it specifically to the
mention of Lucius Malfoy's name.  Again, this is purely subjective, a 
matter of nuance: from the way that the scene was described, I just
can't believe the gesture as *not* being a response to Malfoy's name.

My personal theory on the Sudden Movement is this: Snape knows full
well that the instant that Harry speaks Lucius Malfoy's name, he will
have destroyed *any* chance of being believed by the likes of Fudge.
Fudge will *never* accept a tale that implicates such a wealthy and
respectable member of society.  So the movement is an instinctive
gesture of warning -- or of interruption, or even of restraint -- 
which is then suppressed almost instantly because (a) Snape can't 
very well go shutting Harry up under the circumstances, and (b) it's 
too late anyway: the damaging name has already been spoken, and any
hope of gaining Fudge's trust or allegiance has probably been lost.

<shrug>  

Well, that's my interpretation of the Sudden Movement, anyway.  Any 
takers?


----
Snape and Karkaroff


More recently, people have been suggesting that Karkaroff might have
served as Snape's DE mentor, either as an older student at Hogwarts, 
as a member of faculty there, or after Snape had left school.  As an
extra bonus, some people have thrown in a bit of slashy speculation 
about the two of them as well.  

A couple of people have cited the tone of their exchanges in GoF as 
proof of some degree of lingering affection: Judy, for example, 
pointed out that Karkaroff is the only person we have ever seen Snape 
address by first name in all of canon; and someone else (forgot who, 
sorry) returned to the idea that Karkaroff's moment of hesitation and 
stress right before fingering Snape to the ministry in the Pensieve 
scene really *was* indicative of inner turmoil, of his deep 
reluctance to turn in someone who he actually liked.  A couple of 
people have also read a good deal of pity in Snape's tone when he 
speaks to Karkaroff.

I find this interesting, because back in the days of *this* exchange,
Rebecca cited Snape's attitude toward Karkaroff as a suggestion that
Snape holds *no* affection for old DE colleagues:

> And Snape is contemptuous and dismissive of Karkaroff, there's no
> love lost there, so you wonder about the other people.

The fact that people can read these exchanges so very differently
fascinates me.  

Personally, I think both that Snape's attitude toward Karkaroff is
contemptuous and dismissive *and* that this reflects some degree of
residual affection.  Snape must know, after all, that Karkaroff tried 
to rat him out.  And while it might seem highly irrational for 
someone who was himself a mole to take such a thing personally, or to 
harbor any animosity over it, this is Snape.  He's not a forgiving 
person.  I'd be willing to bet that he *did* take it personally.  

So really, I'd say that "contemptuous and dismissive" is quite a 
generous response, under the circumstances.  "Utter despite and 
loathing" would be rather more what I would expect from Snape, all 
things considered.  (And surely the temptation to take the "I quite 
agree, Igor, you *are* in a difficult situation.  You know, a potion 
would at least be quick..." approach must have been very nearly 
overwhelming.)

It also seems to me that Snape's attempts to avoid Karkaroff towards 
the end of GoF might well be indicative of a certain level of pure 
and simple discomfort: Karkaroff is, after all, likely doomed to die 
most unpleasantly in the near future.  Not nice to contemplate, even 
for someone with as strong a stomach as Snape.

So yeah.  I figure they probably liked each other well enough at one 
time, although I can't quite buy the lovers theory, nor the mentor-
protege one.  Their interactions are more suggestive to my mind of a 
relatively equal peer-colleague relationship than of either a sexual 
or a mentor-protege bond.  Not that I can defend that, of course.  
Just my impression.


----
Snape and Young Crouch


In response to my suggestion that Snape could well have been the one 
to lead his "Old Slytherin Gang" down the road to damnation in the 
first place, Eileen suggested the possibility of a mentor-protege 
relationship between Snape and Young Barty Crouch:

> What's more, he could have influenced younger Slytherins to the 
> bad. . . . Supposing that Crouch Jr. was in Slytherin (in a younger 
> year) while Snape was still there, and...had looked up to him...

Oh, ouch.

Well, that *would* put a whole new spin on that "another old friend" 
comment, now, wouldn't it?

I'm not sure that I believe it, but if true, then that certainly 
*would* pile on the angst, wouldn't it?

O, the humanity.


--- Elkins




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Fri Feb  8 23:24:45 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 23:24:45 -0000
Subject: Moody's maimed body parts and the limitations of wizarding medicine
In-Reply-To: <a3tokb+fmt5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a41mnt+q6qc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34912

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" <midwife34 at a...> wrote:
> ...Dudley's tongue- here is where an inconsistency 
> lies with my soft tissue theory. Unless the twins have
inadvertently 
> come up with something that could be used in wizarding medicine and 
> are unaware of its potential use for soft tissue regeneration. 

That, and Duley's tail from PS/SS. I wonder if Dudley had full use 
of the tail or the tongue. As I recall, people who have an extra
finger can't use it.

My guess is that the Ton-Tongue Tofees had a potion equvalent
of something almost like an engorgement "charm." I wonder
what the cell structure would have been.  I speculate that a Muggle
doctor would have called it a cancer.  So nice of the Weasleys or
the MoM to fix it.  Others have noticed that Madam Pomfrey can 
reverse  the effects of kid prank magic.  She probably could have
removed the tail Dudders got courtesy of Hagrid. If it had been
the result of a birth defect, however, I think she couldn't have 
removed it.

It may be that Moody's injuries may not have been direct effects
of magic, but may have been secondary physical blast effects from
the curses.  He could block the magic itself, but not the blast.  It
may have been the blast from the AK curse that made Harry's scar, 
although the curse itself was blocked.  JKR's magic seems to 
involve perpetual motion.  My guess is that even so, Newton would
prevail, and there would be an equal reaction to every magical 
action. So, there would be a lot of dissordering force opposite the 
magical action.

That said, it seems strange that Cedric Diggory nor V's father and 
grandparents weren't mangled by the AK curse. Moody's damage
may have been due to his blocking the AK curse.  That damage may 
be too great to treat even magically, especially when it happens
may times.

Wizards might, in the future, find an analogy to the polyjuice 
potion: a selective poison made including a biopsy sample of a 
cancer, which would rid the body of all the occurences of that 
particular cancer in that particular person. It would have to be
concocted individually for each case.

Tex, who imagines Hermione saying, "Mom, Dad, this is Professor
Moody. He wants to talk to you about me becoming an Auror."





From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Fri Feb  8 21:29:30 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 21:29:30 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape; Lupin's 'mistakes' again
Message-ID: <F313k4pRVeNvTAbYVpw00012382@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34913

Mahoney said, WRT Black suspecting Lupin:
>Firstly, it seems potentially a little odd that Black would suspect
Lupin just because of general prejudice against werewolves.  He's
been friends with Lupin, even helped him run around in dangerous
form; and Lupin seems a little surprised that Black suspected him,
indicating that Black had at least never acted with overt prejudice
against Lupin on the basis of simple werewolfness.

First, I should imagine that there is a general atmosphere of paranoia in 
those days. There's quite a bit of that "trust no one and keep your wand 
handy" mentality implied. So everyone is suspect, but Remus more than Peter, 
simply because Remus is a more capable wizard in Sirius' eyes. Peter 
wouldn't have the cojones to play double agent, but Remus is a strong, 
powerful wizard.

Also, Remus is a werewolf. Who knows how that might get used against him. It 
would make him more a liability in keeping the Fidelius a secret, whereas 
with incompentent Peter, his bumbling nature is a strength in keeping the 
secret: nobody would suspect that he was the secret keeper.

J

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





From carrie_1017 at yahoo.com  Fri Feb  8 23:32:19 2002
From: carrie_1017 at yahoo.com (leafofsilver)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 23:32:19 -0000
Subject: Sirius & deaths
In-Reply-To: <a40la9+av72@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a41n63+q70a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34914

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ffimiles" <ffionmiles at h...> wrote:
> In resposne to Sirius being the 'difficult death to write' - do you 
> really think JKR would be that cruel to Harry?  Also, she has said 
> somewehere that Sirius will be declared innocent before the end of 
> the series, so I don't think he'll be dying in book5, or even 6 - 
but 
> the horrid thing is that someone is going to die, and note in large 
> writing to self - have copious amounts of tissues for all next 3 
> books - and a whole tree full if Ron dies...
> Ffi

I don't think it will be Sirius, either.  Although my thought is that 
he is too new to the series.  I don't have the same sense of him as 
the trio, or other major characters that we've had since Book 1.  

When I first heard someone was going to be killed off, I IMMEDIATELY 
thought of Hermoine- I said it was because she was probably the 
character that JKR identified the most with (prior to reading that 
JKR HAS said that about Hermoine).  My next thought was Hagrid.  

I'm torn between respecting JKR for beeing realistic and telling the 
story & not wanting to lose any beloved characters!

**thoughts from a new member who's been lurking a few days now**

"leafofsilver"




From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Fri Feb  8 21:35:21 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 21:35:21 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A little George, a little Lollipops, a whole lotta Snape
Message-ID: <F46CotsiPIBo3DCAJ5G00016fa5@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34915

>From: "pippin_999" <foxmoth at qnet.com>
>My idea is that Snape didn't find out  about the Secret
>Keeper stunt until after Voldemort's downfall. He could have
>warned Dumbledore that he thinks Sirius is the spy and that
>James shouldn't trust him, without knowing anything specifically
>about the Secret Keeper.   It would only be after Voldemort's
>downfall, when Snape and Dumbledore are comparing notes
>trying to figure out what happened, that Snape finds out about the
>spell.

That makes sense. I was a little leary, but I can see that Snape didn't need 
to know about the Fidelius to warn James and get rebuffed.

J


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





From andrew_macian at yahoo.com  Fri Feb  8 23:47:34 2002
From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 15:47:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Moody's maimed body parts and the limitations of wizarding medicine
In-Reply-To: <a41mnt+q6qc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020208234734.61177.qmail@web9504.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34916

Greetings from Andrew!

Meddle not in the affairs of quantum mechanics....for
you taste good with Dijon mustard....
--- tex23236 <jbryson at richmond.infi.net> wrote:
{snip}

> It may be that Moody's injuries may not have been
> direct effects
> of magic, but may have been secondary physical blast
> effects from
> the curses.  He could block the magic itself, but
> not the blast.  It
> may have been the blast from the AK curse that made
> Harry's scar, 
> although the curse itself was blocked.  JKR's magic
> seems to 
> involve perpetual motion.


How so?  In the above, you argue that there  are both
energetic (for lack of a magical particle akin to a
boson or baryon) and macro-level effects.  Where's the
perpetuum mobile?  Seems to be pretty linear at both
the quantum and nuclear (so to speak) levels as you
point out.

>  My guess is that even so,
> Newton would
> prevail, and there would be an equal reaction to
> every magical 
> action. So, there would be a lot of dissordering
> force opposite the 
> magical action.

Erm.  Arguably, the same is true at the quantum-scale
of events in both the 'real' and magical universes. 
Newtonian models still (sort of) apply, and in the
event (pardon the pun) that they don't, then there are
equivalent models in both the Standard Model and in
the so-called Wheeler Model.  So where's the
disconnection?

> 
> That said, it seems strange that Cedric Diggory nor
> V's father and 
> grandparents weren't mangled by the AK curse.
> Moody's damage
> may have been due to his blocking the AK curse. 
> That damage may 
> be too great to treat even magically, especially
> when it happens
> may times.

When some forms of death occur, there is indeed the
possibility of a PM report coming back that the corpse
is in perfect health, just dead.  You can find
anomalies in the blood work (e.g.) that give a cause
of death, or you can argue that the subject's suffered
some form or micro-CVA, or that the subject's heart
simply failed.

Given the descriptions that we have of the effects of
AK, I would suggest that the basic effect is
identical, to a massive, nearly-instantaneous OD of
sodium.  The neural system simply fires one or two
*massive* events, and the subject's dead, usually with
a surprised look.  Sound familiar?

> 
> Wizards might, in the future, find an analogy to the
> polyjuice 
> potion: a selective poison made including a biopsy
> sample of a 
> cancer, which would rid the body of all the
> occurences of that 
> particular cancer in that particular person. It
> would have to be
> concocted individually for each case.

Sounds like some of the current research being done in
terms of vaccines for the neoplasms that are based on
virii.  Interesting notion....


> 
> Tex, who imagines Hermione saying, "Mom, Dad, this
> is Professor
> Moody. He wants to talk to you about me becoming an
> Auror."

"Hello.  We're from the Government, and we're here to
help...."

Cheers,

Drieux

=====
ICQ # 76184391

'Each game of chess means there's one less
      Variation left to be played;
 Each day got through means one or two less
      Mistakes remain to be made.'
      --'Chess' by Sir Tim Rice

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com



From theennead at attbi.com  Sat Feb  9 00:19:38 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 00:19:38 -0000
Subject: Pranks -- Envy -- Ghosts -- Library Policies
In-Reply-To: <003901c1acf9$4db92ce0$e0c71bce@hppav>
Message-ID: <a41puq+drgt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34917

My favorite subversive, Eric Oppen of "Frank Longbottom Was
Judge Dredd On Acid!" fame, wrote:

> Somebody above (forgive me for not remembering who; I get this list
> as a digest) said that she didn't like the Weasley twins, Gred-and-
> Forge.  

That was me.  No, I really don't care for the twins at all, although
I do appreciate their kindness to Harry.  But I can't help it.  I 
simply _loathe_ practical jokes, and pranks, and pranksters.

Well...all except for those named "Eric Oppen," that is.  

> It occurs to me that they _might_ be prime candidates for the role 
> of Next Evil Overlord.  I've never been fond of practical jokers---
> remember, Batman's _worst_ and most frequent enemy is called the 
> Joker.  Sure, they're popular and well-liked _now,_ but apparently 
> so was Tom (Lord Voldemort)Riddle when _he_ was at Hogwarts.

Ah, and you will notice that both Tom ("I Am Lord Voldemort") Riddle 
*and* "Gred-and-Forge" have been known to play word games with their 
own names.

Coincidence?  Oooooh, I don't *think* so.

> I'm not saying that they _will_ turn evil---I'm just saying that the
> possibility is definitely there...

At this point, I'd call it a well-nigh canonical certainty.

Barb, on the other hand, remains unconvinced:

> Plus, if pranks were a sign of basic inner rottenness, it is
> doubtful that JKR would have related Sirius' youthful indiscretions,
> which make him look far worse than the twins (Snape could have been
> killed).  And yet, he's just a peach of a guy now.  

Indeed, it is quite clear that JKR labors under the sad delusion that
practical jokes are <shudder> funny.  I do believe, in fact, that 
she's even been suckered into believing that they are fundamentally 
good-humored.  "No harm in it, honest."  "It's all in fun."  "What's 
the matter, can't take a joke?"

Bah.

Of course, *we* know that in actuality, the practical joke is a 
particularly vile and passive-aggressive form of sadism which 
operates by forcing its victims to actively *collude* in their own 
degradation by pressuring them to swallow down humiliation with a 
shaky laugh and a strained smile.  *We* know that prank-pulling is 
really nothing more than a form of bullying which hides its true 
malice behind an unconvincing mask of jollity and good-humor.  *We* 
know that there is really nothing in the least bit amusing or good-
natured about the practical joke, that far to the contrary, it is 
just one of the many means by which the socially popular assert their 
dominance over their less charismatic peers.

But apparently JKR doesn't.  And since she's writing the books, not 
us, the pranksters get to be the canonical Good Guys.

Pah.

I know that I, for one, *detest* practical jokers.  My hatred for 
them runs all the way to my very marrow; I will bitterly resent them 
until the end of time; I will...

> If anything, it's folks who carry grudges to the nth degree that
> consistently get painted as evil in the HP books, not pranksters.

<Elkins blinks, then looks away from the computer screen, suddenly 
terribly preoccupied with the apparently difficult task of lighting 
her cigarette>


Actually, I'd say that it's not so much grudge-holding as *envy* that 
is the Grand Sin of the Potterverse.  Holding grudges is certainly 
bad, but envy (itself often one of the underlying reasons for the 
grudge-holding) seems to me to be the Potterverse's real corrupting 
force.  Its effects on Snape are obvious, but there's also Crouch Jr.,
whose hatred of the other DEs seems to be primarily motivated by his 
bitter envy of their relatively suffering-free lives, and Draco 
Malfoy, whose envy of Harry seems at times to be pushing him to 
something close to *derangement,* let alone Darkness.  And while 
Pettigrew has never 'fessed up to envy as a prime motivating factor 
in his betrayal of the Marauders -- preferring to stick closely to 
the Cowardice Defense -- I think that most readers assume that envy 
played a not-inconsiderable role there, as well.

Envy's the real spiritual killer in the HP books, I think, and I 
found it interesting that both Ron and Harry spent large portions of 
GoF -- the "turning point" of the series -- wrestling with it.  
Harry's problems with Cedric are really far more envy-based than 
jealousy-based, IMO, and of course, Ron's difficulties with envy are 
painfully apparent.

I find myself wondering when Hermione's going to have to stare down 
envy.  


----
ON GHOSTS

Unc Mark and his niece, who sounds like a wonderfully compassionate 
and caring individual, were wondering if poor Moaning Myrtle could 
ever be laid to rest.  He queried:

> What would Myrtle's unfinished business be?

Why, she has to stop holding grudges, of course!  She has to forgive 
Olive Hornby and all of those other rotten kids for picking on her 
back when they were students.

Maybe Snape could give her a few pointers there.  <snerk>


----
ON LIBRARY POLICIES

On the question of Hermione keeping the Moste Potente Potions book 
out of the library for months on end, Jake wrote:

> Well, maybe the Hogwarts library has a more liberal checkout
> policy.  You can keep the book until another student needs it...

I don't know if this is typical of all British universities, but when 
I briefly attended the University of Wales, the library allowed books 
to be kept out for the entire year, provided no other student 
requested them.

Hogwarts' library probably works the same way.


--- Elkins




From Zarleycat at aol.com  Sat Feb  9 00:43:58 2002
From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 00:43:58 -0000
Subject: Sirius & deaths
In-Reply-To: <a40la9+av72@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a41rce+jfpc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34918

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ffimiles" <ffionmiles at h...> wrote:
> In resposne to Sirius being the 'difficult death to write' - do you 
> really think JKR would be that cruel to Harry?  Also, she has said 
> somewehere that Sirius will be declared innocent before the end of 
> the series, so I don't think he'll be dying in book5, or even 6 - 

Really?  Where did that info come from?  I recall seeing someplace 
that someone asked her (the Blue Peter chat thing?) whether Sirius' 
name would be cleared (in the next book? ever?) and her response was 
something like "I can't talk about that - it will give too much [of 
the plot] away."  

Of course, I hope that Sirius will remain among the living at the end 
of the series. And also will not have had an unfortunate encounter 
with a Dementor...

Several months ago someone on the list wrote that s/he thought that 
Sirius would die by the end of the series because at that point Harry 
would be leaving Hogwarts and ready to go out into the world.  I 
can't buy that.  Simply being a 17-year-old doesn't make one adult 
enough to find their way in the world.  Harry has never had the 
benefit of living with any sort of father-figure.  I'd like to see 
Harry living with an adult who cares about him, who can provide him 
with a link with his parents, who has an understanding about the 
trials Harry has already had to live through, and who can provide him 
with some support when he needs it.  To my mind, Sirius is the only 
person who fits the bill.  

Who will die?  Hagrid and at least one Weasley.  And the only reason 
I'm throwing in a Weasley is that there are a bunch of them.  I think 
it would be relatively easy to bump almost any of them off, except 
Ron.  

Marianne




From Whirdy at aol.com  Sat Feb  9 00:49:57 2002
From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:49:57 EST
Subject: Pippn Speculation on Damage HP4GUs
Message-ID: <ea.224fb0ff.2995cc35@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34919

Good speculation on Hermione and the torn page.

whirdy


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




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Sat Feb  9 01:04:47 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 01:04:47 -0000
Subject: Moody's maimed body parts and the limitations of wizarding medicine
In-Reply-To: <20020208234734.61177.qmail@web9504.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a41sjf+ikbi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34920

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Andrew MacIan <andrew_macian at y...> wrote:
> Greetings from Andrew!
> 
> Meddle not in the affairs of quantum mechanics....for
> you taste good with Dijon mustard....
> --- tex23236 <jbryson at r...> wrote:
> {snip}
> >   JKR's magic
> > seems to 
> > involve perpetual motion.
>  
I was actually thinking of Zero-point energy sources. But
I'm not sure that's PM.  The NASA web page doesn't say a
lot, but to some UFO phriques, it's the Chalice.
> 
> ...(snip)So where's the
> disconnection?
Well, it takes energy to put things in order, and energy is
released as disorder increases. In the AK curse, death is an
organised state. (appealing to chaos theory here) the behavior
of a corpse is predictable.
> 
> > 

> When some forms of death occur, ...or that the subject's heart
> simply failed.
> 
> Given the descriptions that we have of the effects of
> AK, I would suggest that the basic effect is
> identical, to a massive, nearly-instantaneous OD of
> sodium.  The neural system simply fires one or two
> *massive* events, and the subject's dead, usually with
> a surprised look.  Sound familiar?

Yes, it's the failed AK that causes Harry and Moody's scars.
Oops, Moody says only Harry has survived AK.  Surprising
that nobody tried AK on Moody, then? Or is this a lie told
by the Crouch/Moody?  He tells the class that he would 
survive a student's AK with hardly a nosebleed in the same
class period he says there has been only one survivor.  Has 
Moody (the real one)actually survived AK?  We see V using 
AK at Harry, but he cast Expelliarmus at the same time, finaly 
causing Prior Incantato on V's wand.  Unpredictable results?
ANYway, a failed AK seems to result in some kind of disorder.
That probably holds for most spells.

Why would a dark(i.e. one who is already on the sheet for using 
an UC, so it doesn't matter if he uses more) wizard cast any other 
spell than AK? Is it more difficult?  What spells would one use in a 
serious duel, other than the UC's?

Tex, who is trying to work out JKR's system of magic...





From Zarleycat at aol.com  Sat Feb  9 01:11:23 2002
From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 01:11:23 -0000
Subject: Responsibility for the prank (was the Veritaserum theory)
In-Reply-To: <A38FFF54-1CCF-11D6-AF64-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a41svr+f2rh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34921

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Porphyria <porphyria at m...> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 7, 2002, at 08:27 PM, Liz Sager wrote:
> 
> I'm wondering why all this speculation about whether Snape somehow 
> provoked Sirius into sending him into the passageway with Lupin. I 
> thought the book was pretty clear that it was Sirius's idea. Lupin 
is 
> actually the one who tells the story, in Sirius's presence (ch.18, 
PoA):
> 
> "Sirius here played a trick on him which nearly killed him, a trick 
> which involved me--"
> 
> To which Sirius replies that it served Snape right for sneaking 
around 
> always trying to get them expelled.
> Lupin continues, adding "Sirius thought it would be -- er -- 
amusing, to 
> tell Snape all he had to do was prod the knot..."
> 
> Lupin clearly lays the blame for this on Sirius' peculiar sense of 
> humor. He sounds annoyed here, as well he should be since he was an 
> unwilling participant.

Why do you think Remus sounds annoyed?  There is nothing in canon to 
indicate that his tone of voice, actions or expression show any 
indication of annoyance or anger as he tells this story.  I read it 
somewhat differently - that "-- er-- amusing" seemed to me to 
indicate that Lupin was struggling for a word to use to slide this 
whole thing by without revealing any more than he had to.  I always 
felt that he wanted to keep everyone's focus on Pettigrew in the 
Shrieking Shack and that discussion of this incident would have taken 
a lot more time to fully explain to the Trio.


 But if there were extenuating circumstances, 
> wouldn't Sirius admit to them, if only to excuse himself in Lupin's 
> eyes? 

He must have found some way to explain or excuse himself in Remus' 
eyes, as the prank did not seem to destroy their friendship. 

Furthermore, Sirius seems to jump at any chance to 
> portray Snape as creepy and slimy, so wouldn't it support his 
argument 
> if he could also accuse Snape of literally forcing the prank into 
> existence through cunning or a dirty trick of his own? I think the 
fact 
> that Sirius never contradicts Lupin's account and can only counter 
that 
> Snape deserved it for being annoying and meddling proves that 
Sirius 
> does consider the prank to have been his idea in the first place.


I agree that Sirius does consider the prank to have been his idea. I 
don't think that Sirius cares enough about it in the Shrieking Shack 
to want to spend any time rehashing it.  He wants to get Pettigrew.  
Whatever happened between him and Snape is of no importance to Sirius 
at this moment. 

I do think there is more background to this incident.  I dont' think 
Sirius was tricked, potioned, charmed, imperioused, or somehow forced 
into this because he was the victim of some sort of magic.  I'm of 
the opinion, and I have no canon basis for saying so, that Sirius did 
this of his own free will, but the reason he did it was because he 
had some sort of provocation, some sort of incident involving Snape 
that set him off at this particular time.  

And, yes, Sirius can't get past the slimy Snape figure, just as Snape 
can't get past the arrogant, strutting James figure. These two are so 
much alike in some respects...

Marianne





From marybear82 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  9 01:34:18 2002
From: marybear82 at yahoo.com (Mary Shearer)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:34:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups]Re: LOLLIPOPS, Harry's right to know
In-Reply-To: <a3vc86+p6h6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020209013418.34383.qmail@web14007.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34922


Cindy wrote:
> > Canon, OK, I need some canon.  Dumbledore gives us
> a key line in 
> the 
> > Pensieve chapter that means that something
> happened between 
> himself 
> > and Snape that caused him to trust Snape's
> conversion.  When Harry 
> > asks about this point-blank, Dumbledore says,
> "That, Harry, is a 
> > matter between Professor Snape and myself."  If he
> had just 
> followed 
> > his gut or instinct, he wouldn't have said that. 
> He would have 
> said 
> > something like, "I just know."

Marina wrote:

 -- the "that's between Snape and
> myself" answer 
> seems to go against the notion that Snape's
> conversion had anything 
> to do with the Potters.  Because if it did, then
> Harry would have a 
> legitimate right to know about it, so Dumbledore
> wouldn't be able to 
> honestly say that it wasn't any of Harry's business.
 
First of all, I'll share that my first post on this
board was a request for permission to come aboard the
good ship LOLLIPOPS, and though I've spent most of my
time in my cabin, I've really enjoyed the recent
debate. 

To me, Dumbledore's refusal to discuss the details of
Snape's conversion with Harry is the *best* evidence
to date that LOLLIPOPS will reach port safely. Whether
Harry has a right to know or not, (and I don't believe
he does) it is not Dumbledore's place to reveal that
information to him. That would be a matter between
Snape and Harry.  Snape's confession was probably
given in the strictest confidence, and Dumbledore has
too much integrity to violate it.  Furthermore - there
would be nothing to gain by trying to explain such a
thing to Harry.  Imagine his reaction - he hates Snape
anyway, and "oh, by the way, Snape had the hots for
your sainted mum." Harry is in no way mature enough or
objective enough to process that kind of news - he'd
probably just implode. At the very least, it would not
improve relations between him and Snape. He would
probably visualize something akin to Cindy's hilarious
rant that she posted earlier about Snape's crush
(Snape's pathetic dungeon room with various eeewwwy
stalker-type items, my favorite being Lily's wedding
picture with Snape's head pasted on James' body - been
laughing about that since this morning!)  

Suffice it to say that in no way would it be a good
thing for Harry to know at this point - especially
from a third party.  The news should come to him in a
heart-wrenching confession from Snape
himself...preferably just before he dies, yeah
DIES!... following a GLORIOUS act of SELF-SACRIFICE
that REDEEMS him COMPLETELY in Harry's eyes!  (Mary's
eyes are unnaturally bright and her nostrils are now
flaring)...ahem...yeah...(small voice)...sorry.

Carried away or not, as you can see, I'm really
hopeful that Snape does, in fact, have a soft squishy
center beneath that hard, cold, cruel exterior - or at
least *had* one before life dealt him his current
hand. If anyone knows this about him, Dumbledore does.
 And his refusal to discuss such a deeply personal
thing about Snape with Harry makes perfect sense. 

-Mary, who, as she plants herself on a deck chair in
the sun with a margarita and a copy of "True
Confessions," wonders how many licks *does* it take to
get to the center of a L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S? 
    

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com



From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Sat Feb  9 02:35:28 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 02:35:28 -0000
Subject: Yo, Lollipopsers!  Why did TR go bad?
In-Reply-To: <F46CotsiPIBo3DCAJ5G00016fa5@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a421tg+47a5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34923

Was it because of Moaning Myrtle?

I ask this as I realize the living Myrtle was @ Hogwarts when TR
was there.  

Was he just pranking around with the Chamber of  Secrets thing 
until the Basilisk killed Myrtle? 

Was Myrtle his unrequited love? 

Did  Olive Hornby give Myrtle so much pain because she was 
jealous of TR's love?

Was TR driven into darkness from guilt over Myrtle's death?

Where was the tunnel to the Chamber before Hogwarts got indoor
plumbing?

Tex, 
who wishes for access to all the student transcripts since about 
1800...





From cindysphynx at home.com  Sat Feb  9 02:40:18 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 02:40:18 -0000
Subject: Snape & the DEs, Reprise (Long, of Course)
In-Reply-To: <a41joa+doq0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4226i+mg3d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34924

Elkins wrote:

> And Cindy, if it will make you feel any better, I have always 
firmly 
> believed (on the basis of no canonical evidence whatsoever) that 
the 
> information Snape passed on to Dumbledore led Evan Rosier straight
> into the ambush in which he was killed by Alastor Moody.  
> 
> There now.  Does that satisfy a bit of that blood lust?  
> 
> No?  Still thirsty?  
> 
> Well, then why not add a chaser of Wilkes?
> 

Oh, my.  This is just making me feel all squishy inside.  Finally, 
*someone* else (besides George, who I still don't fully trust) buys 
on to the Ambush idea.  ::dabs at eyes::  Elkins, can I offer you a 
few cheap trinkets that probably won't give you a bad skin rash if 
you remember to take them off at night?    

Actually, Dolohov is in my ambush as well, and I'm willing to let 
Frank Longbottom have a bit of the glory.  I will note for the 
record, however, that I think there were three Death Eaters in the 
ambush (Dolohov, Rosier and Wilkes). That makes my ambush *bigger.* 

::hitches trousers::

Heck, maybe Frank can have *all* of the glory in the ambush.

<theory>

This is shades of Eric, in a way, but maybe not.  You see, Moody and 
Longbottom were the Aurors who were going to take out Snape's 
buddies.  Moody wanted to find a way to talk Rosier down peacefully, 
but Longbottom was having none of it.  Moody, being senior, prevailed 
and tried to be reasonable with Rosier.  This was a mistake.  Rosier 
blasted Moody squarely in the face.  That left Longbottom alone to 
bring in the Death Eaters singlehandedly.  As he was outnumbered 
three-to-one, this took some fancy wand fire.  The Legend of Frank 
Longbottom was the result, which was why he was so very popular.  
Longbottom, like Moody, is quite Tough.

*******

Elkins again:

> Poor Misunderstood Avery

<snip>
 
> And boy, he sure does crack fast when Voldemort starts accusing his 
> DEs of ideological infidelity, doesn't he?  I mean, the poor 
bastard 
> just goes all to pieces.  

Yes, Avery is a difficult case to sort out.  Still such a blank 
slate, and only three books to go.  

Unlike Hagrid, I can't write Avery off as insufficiently Tough, 
though.  Oh, sure, he doesn't have the good sense to keep his head 
down when Voldemort is looking for an opportunity to polish his 
Crucio skills.  Yes, he writhes and shrieks, but who wouldn't?  But 
he proved he can shake off a Cruciatus Curse, he was willing to 
chance a graveyard appearance, and he can wrangle his way out of 
trouble.  We don't have any evidence that he is a screw-up or 
anything.

What Avery needs is a compelling backstory.  I have deduced that 
Avery is the head of the Department of Magical Catastrophes ("DMC" 
for short) in MoM.  Where's the canon?  

::pulls self up to full and rather insubstantial height::

First, it seems that lots of Death Eaters are in MoM, no?  MacNair, 
Rookwood, Bagman. :-) It's hard to imagine that Avery, in Voldemort's 
inner circle, has a shop selling shoes when all of his buddies are 
well-placed at MoM.

Second, DMC is one of only three departments that doesn't have a head 
(the others being the Department of Mysteries and Accidental Magical 
Reversal).  Avery probably isn't head of Mysteries because Rookwood 
used to do that, and (as Elkins suggests) Sirius would be very 
concerned if Avery were Tough and dangerous enough to be running the 
show there.  Avery probably isn't head of Accidental Magical Reversal 
because Arthur Weasley would have mentioned him.  

No, Avery is and has been head of DMC since the Potters were killed.  
That means that Avery would have been in charge of cleaning up 
Godric's Hollow and in charge of cleaning up after the duel between 
Peter and Sirius.  Avery would have been perfectly positioned to do 
things like recover Voldemort's wand.  Avery would have also been 
positioned to do things like dispose of any evidence that would have 
proven that Pettigrew was still alive after Pettigrew blew up the 
street.  You know, confiscate Sirius' wand to prevent him from being 
exonerated with a Priori Incantantem spell.

Now that things have settled down, Avery is leading a quiet life as a 
middle-aged bureaucrat, still in the same comfortable job making the 
same comfortable salary.  Fudge was Avery's underling in the DMC, but 
Fudge was on the fast track due to his keen political instincts and 
affable nature.  

Elkins again:

>All of the Death Eaters are quite naturally 
> frightened, but Avery would seem to be tottering on the edge of 
> nervous collapse: his reaction to Vold's suggestion that some of 
his 
> DEs might now owe their true allegiance to Dumbledore is not merely 
> fearful, it is quite literally hysterical.


Yes, why does Avery become unhinged in the graveyard?  After all, 
Avery did nothing more or less than Lucius did.  Both claimed they 
were under the Imperius Curse, and Avery has to know that.  "Toady" 
certainly seems to fit, quite frankly.  

But maybe Avery's behavior can be explained another way. It could 
also be that Avery is kind of senior.  Not in age, but in position.  
So maybe he feels a responsibility to have done more than keep 
punching a clock all of these years.  So he steps forward in the 
graveyard and, uh, takes one for the team.

Really, all Avery needed in the graveyard was a good . . . lawyer.  
Someone to say, Avery, don't answer that question, and whatever you 
do, don't admit guilt.

Elkins again:

> <Elkins whips out her shiny new S.Y.C.O.P.H.A.N.T.S badge and pins 
it 
> to her chest with an ill-concealed grimace of self-loathing.  
Having 
> thus assumed her role as the founder of the Society for Yes-men, 
> Cowards, Ostriches, Passive-Aggressives, Hysterics, Abject 
Neurotics 
> and Toadying SYCOPHANTS, she prepares to pontificate.>

::smirk:: Uh, would it be a fair assumption that S.Y.C.O.P.H.A.N.T.S. 
members are not Tough?  Do they watch a great deal of daytime 
television and read a lot of self-help books while they eat pint 
after pint of high-fat ice cream?  :-)  

Cindy (who thinks Dumbledore ought to give Karkaroff another chance 
and bring him on as the DADA teacher)




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Sat Feb  9 03:06:04 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 03:06:04 -0000
Subject: Did Petigrew do it?Re: Responsibility for the prank ...
In-Reply-To: <a41svr+f2rh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a423ms+do28@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34925

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" <Zarleycat at a...> wrote:
 
>   I always 
> felt that he wanted to keep everyone's focus on Pettigrew in the 
> Shrieking Shack and that discussion of this incident would have
taken 
> a lot more time to fully explain to the Trio.

> I agree that Sirius does consider the prank to have been his idea.
I 
> don't think that Sirius cares enough about it in the Shrieking
Shack 
> to want to spend any time rehashing it.  He wants to get Pettigrew.

Was Pettigrew not "in" on this trick?  I wonder if PP in some way
set it off?  Probably Snape could scare anything out of PP, 
including the Marauder's secrets.  I wonder if there was anything
Snape didn't know about the Marauders that Black could have
told him.

All students knew about the Whomping Willow Tree, but not how
to calm it. PP might have told him that.

Many astute Hogwarts students would have figured out Lupen was
a werewolf,  just as Hermione did.  Werewolves are interesting to
kids. More so to wizard kids. There is a library.  A wizard _knows_
what phase the Moon is in, and probably in which house, at any 
time. It's part of wizard life.

Snape's question for Black,  is: where does Lupin go during full 
moon? Or he may have followed the Maraudeers or just Lupin.

We don't know the exact information Black gave him for the prank.
Nor do we know PP's part in the prank.

Tex, who is up way past bedtime. 





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  9 03:25:03 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 03:25:03 -0000
Subject: Moody's maimed body parts and the limitations of wizarding medicine
In-Reply-To: <a3tokb+fmt5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a424qf+ug0q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34926


Concerning the limitations of magic and Madeye Moody are there any 
limitations? According to "jrober4211" "Moody could not have his leg 
> regenerated because obviously the whole thing got blown off at some 
> point. Evidently wizards do not have a remedy for soft tissue 
> replacement, so far, in the books. Skele-grow only works on bone."

Excuse me? No soft tissue replacement? Has Madame Pomfrey had ANY 
injury she could not cure? Has there been ANY mention in the 4 books 
of an incurable injury? No!

I think Moody's injury comes under 2 possibilities,

1) Dark Wizards have much more than the 3 'unforgiveable curses. 
Moodywas hit by some sort of 'healing-resistant' magic bolt. The 
wound resists healing or requires such major magic that Moody does 
without it.
or
2) Moody for some reason wears his injuries as a 'badge of honor' 
choosing not to be healed. Considering the mistrust that was rampant 
during the LV Wars, Moody didn't trust any medic to heal him (or did 
not want to let his guard down long enough to recuperate.

The magic eye must have been a godsend, but distracting. Can you 
imagine walking while one eye looked backwards through your head for 
sneak attacks?

The wooden leg probably didn't slow Moody down too much, with 
broomsticks and apperating he could still get around and he probably 
liked striking fear in the hearts of DE's.

As far as Mrs. Crouch and LV's mom dying, are there things magic 
can't cure? Obviously, but is this the case? LV's mom died giving 
birth in a Muggle Orphanage away from wizard midwifes (in 1927 
according to the Harry Potter Lexicon). Not the cutting edge of 
medicine.

As far as Mrs. Crouch, it perfectly believeable that there are some 
diseases that magic cannot cure, or there may be magic diseases 
unknown to Muggle science. 

Concerning Hermione's teeth and cosmetic magic, It's quite possible 
that she had the 'invisible braces' on the back of her teeth, (I've 
heard kid actresses use them) abd the Granger's being dentists 
probably had the best for her. Hermione could have had the braces 
restored with repairo, but I can't blame a 15 year old girl for 
altering her appearance a little bit. I just eoulfd like to be a 
beetle on the windowsill when she tries to explain to her parents.

My take on magic is that it is mainly limited by the ability and 
creativity of the user. Nicholas Flamel and his Sorceror's Stone 
fought of death for several centuries. What could a master wizard NOT 
accomplish in that time?

I think that much of the perceived limitations of magic come from 
laziness or lack of initiative by the powerful wizards. I mean one of 
the most powerful familys, the Malfoys, spend the majority of their 
energy blackmailing those in power or plotting the return of LV!

If wizards like Hermione and Harry come into power can you imagine 
anything they can't do? (Short of the dead coming back to life, which 
JKR said will not happen in the Potterverse.

Uncmark






From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Sat Feb  9 04:38:04 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 04:38:04 -0000
Subject: Why did TR go bad?; Prank redux; Avery
In-Reply-To: <a421tg+47a5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4293c+qdkd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34927

"tex23236" <jbryson at r...> asked a number of questions:
> Yo, Lollipopsers!  Why did TR go bad?
> ...Was Myrtle his unrequited love? 
> ...Was TR driven into darkness from guilt over Myrtle's death?

Well, at the time of Myrtle's death, Tom Riddle had been sic-ing his 
basilisk on muggle-borns for a while, and he had spent years trying to 
access the legendary "monster of slytherin", so I'd have to say 
no. Seems like he was already pretty evil. 

> Did Olive Hornby give Myrtle so much pain because she was 
> jealous of TR's love?

Well, Tom Riddle is described as tall, handsome, well-liked, and a top 
student, while Myrtle is described as dumpy, pimply, and unpopular, so 
I'd guess not.

> Where was the tunnel to the Chamber before Hogwarts got indoor
> plumbing?

There has been some interesting speculation on this here before -- I 
can't remember the particulars, though. 


In regards to the infamous Prank, Tex speculated that Snape already 
knew Lupin was a werewolf, saying:

> Many astute Hogwarts students would have figured out Lupen was
> a werewolf, just as Hermione did.

I'd say the books are pretty clear that Snape *didn't* know the Lupin 
was a werewolf.  I'd say this is a weak part of the plot -- Snape is 
smart, he should've figured it out.  But why would he run into the 
Shrieking Shack to face a deadly werewolf, if he knew?  Why not just 
tell his friends at school that Lupin was a werewolf?  (Perhaps he 
could have "let it slip" to the other Slytherins at breakfast, thus 
saving everyone a lot of time).  No, it seems clear that JKR intended 
Snape not to know about Lupin's lycanthropy.  Maybe Snape didn't have 
much contact with the Gryffindors, and didn't have much data about 
when Lupin was absent? 

In other words, give it up; Sirius knew what he was doing and the 
Prank was his fault.  I'm willing to admit that Snape is unjustifiably 
mean to Neville if you'll admit that Sirius is to blame for the Prank. 
 


Cindy speculated that Avery is head of the Department of Magical 
Catastrophes, and held that position at the time of the Potter's 
death:
> Fudge was Avery's underling in the DMC, but 
> Fudge was on the fast track due to his keen political instincts and 
> affable nature. 

Uh, Avery would sure need to be on the fast track, too.  As one of 
Snape's circle of friends at Hogwarts, he'd have to be about Snape's 
age.  That would make him around 21 at the time of the Potters' 
deaths.  Awfully young to be a department head (although who knows, 
Percy might manage it.)


A quick off-topic note -- I currently have web access, but not email 
access.  So, if you've emailed me, it will probably be several days 
before I can reply -- sorry!

-- Judy




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sat Feb  9 06:06:56 2002
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 9 Feb 2002 06:06:56 -0000
Subject: New file uploaded to HPforGrownups 
Message-ID: <1013234816.44273.48748.w9@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34928


Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the HPforGrownups 
group.

  File        : /Group Members/hpjesse22002.JPG 
  Uploaded by : susanmcgee48176 <Schlobin at aol.com> 
  Description : Susan McGee's son Jesse at four 

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Group%20Members/hpjesse22002.JPG 

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

susanmcgee48176 <Schlobin at aol.com>
 







From midwife34 at aol.com  Sat Feb  9 06:32:09 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 06:32:09 -0000
Subject: Moody's maimed body parts and the limitations of wizarding medicine
In-Reply-To: <a424qf+ug0q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a42fpa+utfd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34929

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
> 
>
> 
> Excuse me? No soft tissue replacement? Has Madame Pomfrey had ANY 
> injury she could not cure? Has there been ANY mention in the 4 
books 
> of an incurable injury? No!

Can you site another canon based incident of amputation that Madam 
Pomfrey healed? No! The closest thing I could think of was the 
reversal of the petrification caused by the basilisc, but thats a far 
cry from having an extremity blown to bits. She wasn't there to treat 
Moody's injuries, we really don't know what caused Moody to lose his 
leg, we just all assume it was fighting dark wizards. 
> 
>Moody didn't trust any medic to heal him (or did 
> not want to let his guard down long enough to recuperate.
> 
Do you have any idea how long it takes for an amputated limb to heal? 
Not to mention getting the prosthesis to fit right and learning how 
to balance on it, so he had to have spent at least a few months 
recuperating whether he wanted to or not. 
>
As far as Mrs. Crouch, it perfectly believeable that there are some 
> diseases that magic cannot cure, or there may be magic diseases 
> unknown to Muggle science. 

True, this is why I never really questioned what Mrs Crouch died 
from. I think someone else assumed cancer, so I used that as an 
example in my original post. 
> 
> Concerning Hermione's teeth and cosmetic magic, It's quite possible 
> that she had the 'invisible braces' on the back of her teeth, (I've 
> heard kid actresses use them) abd the Granger's being dentists 
> probably had the best for her. Hermione could have had the braces 
> restored with repairo, but I can't blame a 15 year old girl for 
> altering her appearance a little bit. I just eoulfd like to be a 
> beetle on the windowsill when she tries to explain to her parents.

Hermione's tooth problem could not be fixed with braces. The books 
describe her two top front teeth as being overly large, much like a 
rabbit's, before the spell from Malfoy made them grow even bigger. 
And yes, I would have shortened them too had I been given the 
opportunity. 
> 
> My take on magic is that it is mainly limited by the ability and 
> creativity of the user. Nicholas Flamel and his Sorceror's Stone 
> fought of death for several centuries. What could a master wizard 
NOT 
> accomplish in that time?

Restoring a dead person back to life. Curing mental illness caused by 
the cruciatious curse. Curing the werewolf syndrome.Those are the 
three that immediately come to mind, based on canon. 
> 
> I think that much of the perceived limitations of magic come from 
> laziness or lack of initiative by the powerful wizards. I mean one 
of 
> the most powerful familys, the Malfoys, spend the majority of their 
> energy blackmailing those in power or plotting the return of LV!

There is no way to know this for sure, unless the medical wizarding 
action becomes more involved as the war picks up in the next three 
books. So far, there hasn't been too much of the medical aspect in 
the last four books.
> 
> If wizards like Hermione and Harry come into power can you imagine 
> anything they can't do? (Short of the dead coming back to life, 
which 
> JKR said will not happen in the Potterverse.

As Hagrid said when Harry asked why the wizarding world kept 
hidden, " Muggles think magic will cure all their problems." 
Obviously, this a muggle misconception of those muggles that are 
aware of magic.
> 

Jo Ellen
>




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Sat Feb  9 06:34:12 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 06:34:12 -0000
Subject: The Shops of Diagon (filk)
Message-ID: <a42ft4+ulur@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34930

The Shops of Diagon (from PoA, Chap. 4)

(To the tune of The Streets of Laredo)

Dedicated to Dicentra

As I walked out toward the shops of Diagon
As I walked out in Diagon one day
I spied a young wizard a-slurpin' on Sundaes
Slurpin' on Sundaes, as free as a jay

"It seems from your schoolbooks that you attend Hogwarts
Your parents must be proud of how well you've done."
"Oh, sir, I'm an orphan who was raised by Muggles,
When it comes to awful, they're second to none.

"Twas me that my stepfolk were always deridin'
Twas they who invited my Aunt Marge to stay
`Twas then my wrath flew up and that Aunt I blew up
And the Knight Bus let me make a quick getaway.

"Then Corny Fudge came in to handle my suitcase
And said to hang out here until start of school
I somehow don't think it's because I've a cute face
I've used magic powers to break many rules.

"I've heard arguments, see, (but quite accidentally),
That the fugitive Sirius Black when asleep
In his dreams cried `at Hogwarts he's at, so I'll transport'
And may strike me as part of his mission creep.

"He may get me one day but till then a Sundae
I'll savor at the parlor of good Fortescue
`Neath these bright umbrellas this boy Cinderella
Awaits the next onslaught from ol' You-Know-Who"

   - CMC

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





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Sat Feb  9 09:15:36 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 09:15:36 -0000
Subject: limitations of UC
In-Reply-To: <a41sjf+ikbi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a42pbo+b7fc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34931

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" <jbryson at r...> wrote:

> Why would a dark(i.e. one who is already on the sheet for using 
> an UC, so it doesn't matter if he uses more) wizard cast any other 
> spell than AK? Is it more difficult?  What spells would one use in a 
> serious duel, other than the UC's?
> 
> Tex, who is trying to work out JKR's system of magic...

Well, they wanted to Rule The World, which probably is easier if 
everyone else is dead, but Evil Overlords tend to prefer having people 
to opress about and all that. That said, I'm of the oppinion that AK is 
extremely difficult to cast, taking years of practice and great powers 
(this means: only a handful of wizards can cast it). The rest of the 
dark wizards would probably work with lesser spells, most of them being 
nowhere powerfull enough to cat UCs (if Crabbe and Goyle take to their 
fathers, I'd imagine that they weren't precisely providing powerful 
curses to Voldi).

Again, the curse that the dark wizards most used was, according to what 
Harry has been told, the Imperio, although we are discovering that many 
of the people who said that they had been hit by it were lying. The 
Imperio curse is the logical one to take over the world: you just 
Imperio whomever are in charge. We're discovering recently that the 
Imperio has big disadvantages (like people throwing it off at will), 
and it always looked implausible to me that the wizard who made the 
curse could have the imprisioned one do ANYTHING while under the curse 
(in the lines of "go to the Neville's place and put AK to everyone you 
find there, except if their under five years old, in which case just 
Crucitatus them"). The latest developments in Canon seem to point out 
that "Imperioed" people need constant supervision, thus making it 
rather useless for force-labor (what's the point of having someone else 
do the hard work if you're going to be seen anyway in the scene of the 
crime?).

In serious duels, if you could do AK, you'd use it, but if you're not 
powerfull enough, you'd just go for more common spells/hexes/curses 
like balls of fire, lightning, etc.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From tabouli at unite.com.au  Sat Feb  9 10:48:01 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 21:48:01 +1100
Subject: Lupin's bitees, torn page, Sirius gambit, ambush flavoured LOLLIPOPS
Message-ID: <002e01c1b157$5ed3e260$fa50dccb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 34932

Porphyria:
> Yeah, imagine coming back into human form and realizing you've eaten one 
of your classmates. Then what would have happened to him? Off to the 
werewolf pound.<

Hmmm... I wonder if Lupin actually *has* bitten anyone in his lifelong werewolf career?  You'd think he must have gotten (un)lucky at least a couple of times.  Future plot twist?  Wonder how his parents coped when he was a wee child/cub?

AJD:
> I believe the page torn out was the one with the information about 
the Basilisk.  I was also a bit shocked she had done so and had
written a note on it to boot! :)<

Yeah, it did seem out of character for the usually stringently law-abiding teacher-respecting book-revering Hermione.  I file this under "slightly dubious plot devices", because after all, Harry *needed* to find that page in her hand, didn't he?  Couldn't Hermione have taken notes on a separate piece of paper to be found instead?

Ffi:
> In resposne to Sirius being the 'difficult death to write' - do you 
really think JKR would be that cruel to Harry?  <

I don't think "being kind to Harry" is a major motivator for JKR, to be honest.  Look at what she's put him through so far, and the carnage she plans to wreak in the last three books!  In her own way, JKR is just as bloodthirsty as Cindy!  All the same, I don't think Sirius is on Death Row at this stage (or at least, certainly not near the top of the list), for *literary* reasons... we haven't seen that much of him yet, there's a lot more room for Sirius and his relationships with Snape and Harry to develop yet.  It would be wasteful to slaughter him at this stage.

On the subject of the bloodthirsty Cindy...

Cindy:
> Oh, my.  This is just making me feel all squishy inside.  Finally, 
*someone* else (besides George, who I still don't fully trust) buys 
on to the Ambush idea.  ::dabs at eyes::  Elkins, can I offer you a 
few cheap trinkets that probably won't give you a bad skin rash if 
you remember to take them off at night?<

WHAT?  (Tabouli sits up indignantly).  HUH!!  This is a gross libel!  Just yesterday in my message "Filch/Mrs Norris (FLIRTIAC) & still more LOLLIPOPS" I specifically sang a soothing sea shanty at you (Cindy) and wrote a Personalised LOLLIPOPS-friendly Ambush Scenario!  I even covered a lot of things which cropped up in digests over the last couple of days in it, such as why Lily need not have been a "war trophy" and why V need not have known about Snape's crush.

Grrrr.

Though I did note it came in an unusually short 2 post digest - didn't it reach anyone?

Judy:
> We need a reason why Voldy tells Snape about 
the threat to the Potters in the first place.  If Voldy knew that 
Snape wanted Lily, I can just see the following scene.  Voldy calls 
Snape in, and tells him, "Snape, my slippery friend, I promised you'd 
be rewarded for supporting me. And so you shall!  I have decided to 
kill James Potter! Lily will soon be yours!  Bwaa-ha-haa-ha-haa!"<
>
>All right, I admit it, another possibility is that Voldy told Snape 
(or whoever warned Dumbledore) of his plan to kill the Potters because 
Voldy is a compulsive braggart.<

As I said in my (sadly unread?) ambush-by-LOLLIPOPS theory, there's no need for V to know about Snape's undying love for Lily (though the fact that he was willing to let her live when his usual attitude to someone in the way is "Kill the spare" *is* a bit suspicious...).  It's a bit of a stretch for me to imagine Snape (Snape!) confessing such un-Death-Eater-like feelings to Voldemort, let alone Voldemort sympathising with them. My crew are welcome to their own personal takes on LOLLIPOPS, but having mused a bit on Snape's Slytherin gang, I have some new musings, which I detailed last post (gone astray?).  Let me fill in a few more details, so I don't repeat too much.

Somehow, V found that the Potters were, in some way, a serious threat.  Either he found this out himself, or one of his followers told him.  Perhaps Trelawney went into a trance in public and announced "Behold, wizards of England, the loins of lad of messy sable locks have spawned the babe who shall slay the Dark Lord" on Harry's birthday, and followers of V and D immediately rushed off to tell their leaders.

V then concocted a *plot* to kill the Potters.  Sounds like a reasonably complex operation, doesn't it?  Obviously he knew it wasn't just going to be a matter of wham bam dead as spam, because D's followers would now be rushing to protect the Potters at all costs.  He therefore decided to put together a Potterkill Task Force with the cream of his followers.  Snape and perhaps a couple of other ex-Slytherin gang members would be an obvious choice, as they knew James and Lily at school and would have a better idea of how they might act, who they trusted and so on.  Snape, with his talents and brains, could well have have been a pretty effective Death Eater, perhaps even the leader of the Force.  Their first step was to plant a spy in the enemy ranks.   The ex Slytherin Gang tipped off V that Peter was The Weakest Link in the trusted circle, and V made short work of his recruitment to the Task Force ("So what's it to be, Peter, DE or AK?").  The second step was for them to use Peter's information to find and kill the Potters.

All in all, V would have expected his trusty Snape to have polished off the Potters in a week or so.  Mysteriously, however, they seemed to slip through the net time and time again.  This is because, unbeknownst to V, being elected to kill the Potters triggered Snape's final crisis of conscience (see previous email for depiction of Snape's horrible dilemma - kill James and Harry and leave Lily free or play heroic spy to protect her happiness?) and is passing all of Peter's information to D as fast as it comes in to the Unit.  For a while, everyone is prepared to believe that this failure to deliver is because Potterkill is a particularly difficult assignment, as D himself is hiding and protecting the Potters, but as the months go by, Snape's ex-classmates are starting to get suspicious.  Why isn't Snape doing his usual efficient job?  Why is he sometimes a bit evasive and inconsistent about where he's been and what he's been doing?  They know full well that Snape had a crush on an enemy Gryffindor.  Surely those unwarlike, traitorous sentiments are behind him now... aren't they?  Could Snape be deliberately stalling and misdirecting the Task Force to protect Lily??  As time goes by, the suspicions grow and grow, Snape's spying gets more and more dangerous, until finally he has no choice other than to trap them and flee, by setting up a special Task Force meeting with a decoy Snape!Polyjuiced Auror who keeps them talking until Longbottom, Moody and the rest of the Aurors arrive to ambush them in a blaze of glory.

There!  Simple.  LOLLIPOPS with bonus George and ambush, with side serve of no need for Lily as War Trophy.

Tabouli.


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




From theennead at attbi.com  Sat Feb  9 10:56:45 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 10:56:45 -0000
Subject: Where's the Canon? (Part One) -- Canonical "suggestion" and plausibility
In-Reply-To: <a3sqrv+arh0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a42v9d+rv1c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34933

Cindy asks:

> On what basis can we say that a particular idea or theory is or is 
> not supported by canon?

I would say that if someone, when called upon to defend a speculation,
can provide absolutely *nothing* from canon to support their notion,
then there is some legitimate cause for complaint that the 
speculation is not "canon-based."

Canonical suggestion can, however, be very vague -- it is often a 
matter of nuance, or of tone, or of pattern -- and that can sometimes 
blur the distinctions between canon-based and purely imaginative 
speculation.

How, for example, would one classify all of the current speculation 
about Snape's backstory?  Is it "canon-based" speculation, or is it 
not?

Well...both.  It is, and it isn't.  

It is, because the fact that Snape *has* a backstory -- and one that 
must somehow involve him having first sworn loyalty to Voldemort, 
then changed his allegiance, and then spent some time spying for 
Dumbledore before Voldemort's fall -- is most *certainly* canon, and
so speculation about the precise details of how or why any of that 
might have come to pass just seems...*fair,* somehow.  

It isn't, because so many of the arguments people use to defend their 
reasons for favoring one theory over the other are fundamentally 
personal, having no basis in canon at all.

It is, because how we respond emotionally to the canon is a part of 
how we construct a mental image of the Spirit of Canon, against which 
we then compare speculations to see if they match our understanding 
of what the canon "feels" like -- and thus to see how plausible or 
improbable we consider them to be.  ("I like this theory because it 
just seems to *fit* somehow.  It just feels right.")

It isn't, because so many of the assumptions on which the theories 
rely are unsupported by any hard canonical evidence.

It is, because so many of the assumptions on which the theories rely 
are supported by such "soft" canonical evidence as the behavioral
patterns of the work's characters -- which *is* canon.

It isn't, because...

Well, you get the idea.

In the long run, I think that allowing for a fairly loose definition
of what is or is not "canonical" speculation is the most beneficial 
course, partly because to do otherwise would be so inhibiting that it 
would likely smother many useful (and truly canon-based) discussions, 
but mainly simply because it is much more fun that way.  ;-)

> Cindy (hoping that people will continue to spin creative theories 
> because she has fun thinking about them)

I like them, too.  I like even the fanciful ones.  Hell, sometimes I
*especially* like the fanciful ones.

(But I do find myself now wondering if I can really legitimately 
respond to that last "Let Us Now Praise Minor Characters" Avery-Works-
For-the-Ministry-of-Magic post as I would like to, or if it needs to 
be taken to OT-Chatter.)

<blinks>

Hey, wait a minute!  Cindy, aren't you a List Elf?

-- Elkins, now awaiting advice




From fiatincantatum at attbi.com  Sat Feb  9 11:15:35 2002
From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 06:15:35 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Moody's maimed body parts and the limitations of wizarding medicine
In-Reply-To: <a424qf+ug0q@eGroups.com>
References: <a3tokb+fmt5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C64BE87.14642.C0C1505@localhost>

No: HPFGUIDX 34934

On 9 Feb 2002 at 3:25, uncmark wrote:

> Excuse me? No soft tissue replacement? Has Madame Pomfrey had ANY 
> injury she could not cure? Has there been ANY mention in the 4 books 
> of an incurable injury? No!
> 
> I think Moody's injury comes under 2 possibilities,
> 
> 1) Dark Wizards have much more than the 3 'unforgiveable curses. 
> Moodywas hit by some sort of 'healing-resistant' magic bolt.
<snip>

> or
> 2) Moody for some reason wears his injuries as a 'badge of honor' 
> choosing not to be healed.

<snip>

3)  Perhaps SkeleGrow and other tissue regeneration magics only work properly 
on children, whose bodies are still in rapid growth mode anyway.

  
-- 
Fiat Incantatum 
fiatincantatum at attbi.com

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




From midwife34 at aol.com  Sat Feb  9 14:01:49 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 14:01:49 -0000
Subject: limitations of UC
In-Reply-To: <a42pbo+b7fc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a43a4d+fnug@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34935

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" <jbryson at r...> wrote:
> 
> > Why would a dark(i.e. one who is already on the sheet for using 
> > an UC, so it doesn't matter if he uses more) wizard cast any 
other 
> > spell than AK? Is it more difficult?  What spells would one use 
in a 
> > serious duel, other than the UC's?
> > 
> > Tex, who is trying to work out JKR's system of magic...
> 
> Well, they wanted to Rule The World, which probably is easier if 
> everyone else is dead, but Evil Overlords tend to prefer having 
people 
> to opress about and all that. That said, I'm of the oppinion that 
AK is 
> extremely difficult to cast, taking years of practice and great 
powers 
> (this means: only a handful of wizards can cast it). The rest of 
the 
> dark wizards would probably work with lesser spells, most of them 
being 
> nowhere powerfull enough to cat UCs (if Crabbe and Goyle take to 
their 
> fathers, I'd imagine that they weren't precisely providing powerful 
> curses to Voldi).
> 
> I think you might have a point here about AK. Consider that there 
is not much difference in wizards/muggles when it comes to human 
nature. When you look at muggle murder statistics, most mursers are a 
spur of the moment, not planned event where someone picks up a gun or 
a large object and murders a spouse, S/O , or other family member. At 
least this holds true in the US, where guns are more readily 
available. If AK were an easy curse to perform, you would probably 
have a much higher murder rate in the wizarding world where a wizard, 
in a fit of passion, AK'ed a family member. 


Jo Ellen




From catlady at wicca.net  Sat Feb  9 14:32:41 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 14:32:41 -0000
Subject: SNAPESNAPESNAPE / Dumbledore / Secret Passage / Indoor Plumbing
Message-ID: <a43bu9+pai3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34936

Tabouli wrote of Snape:

> I think Snape turning up to Hogwarts at 11 knowing more curses than
> the 7th years is a very worrying indicator of what his childhood 
> must have been like. Whom did he want to curse? An abusive parent
> or guardian?

My theory has been that his parents never wanted to be burdened with 
children, but had one out of duty to carry on the family name, whom 
they then left with a stern governess and the only time they ever 
showed any approval of him was when he displayed enthusiasm and 
aptitude for learning curses (and possibly other Dark Arts). This 
resembles Pippin's theory in that no one cared about young Severus 
(well, the first nanny did, so Father fired her for making him 
'soft') but differs in that I don't think they were servants or 
Squibs. I think they were an old Pureblood family of 'yeoman' class, 
but with an excellent library gradually accumulated over the 
centuries, and a family tradition of Dark Arts.

Marina wrote:

> Karakoff, who we *know* cut a deal to save his neck, is slinking 
> off with his tail between his neck, but Snape is sticking around 
> and, apparently, going right back into the viper pit. Not the 
> behavior of a man who's only out for himself.

Whatever was the reason that Snape turned from following Voldemort to 
following Dumbledore, he's been following Dumbledore for a long time 
by GoF. I believe that he has found (or made) Dumbledore's approval 
his best source of self-esteem (with which to beat down the constant 
internal self-blame that I'm sure he feels, *especially* about his 
Death Eater crimes), so risking (even losing) his life to please 
Dumbledore is to him a fair bargain. That can count as being out for 
himself, just not out only for saving his skin. 

Elkins wrote:

> I can, however, readily see why those who identify with Snape might
> prefer to reject the notion that he could possibly have ever liked 
> such people. They certainly do not, to our way of thinking, seem 
> like terribly likeable individuals.  Although Mrs. Lestrange sure 
> was *sexy,* wasn't she?

Yes. To my mind, that is one of the reasons that poor Sevvie didn't 
like her as much as he liked the blokes in the gang. To my mind, he 
gets very uncomfortable when exposed to female sexuality. That 
doesn't necessarily mean he's gay; I'm sure it is a more common 
pattern that a heterosexual man who can't cope with his own sexual 
feelings (believing them sinful, perceiving them as a loss of 
self-control, simply being scared of the unfamiliar) takes a 
dislike (and, in extreme cases, become a homicidal maniac) to women 
who stir up those feelings in him.

> that of the perceived emotional inability of Slytherins in general,
> and DEs in particular, to form anything that we might consider real 
> friendships.

I'm sure Voldemort would not want his followers to have real 
friendships with each other (and still less with outsiders) because
 he doesn't want them to have any loyalty other than loyalty to him. 
But I believe that he was not able to stamp out all friendships (and 
love of family) among his followers. I fantasize that no Death Eater 
who turned State's Evidence ratted out any fellow Death Eater who had 
been a fellow classmate in Slytherin House at the same time, and that 
the ones who saved their arses tried to save their friends' arses as 
well. (Specifically, I imagine that Lucius Malfoy told a lie and made 
a deal that saved Narcissa and Mr and Mrs Crabbe and Mr and Mrs Goyle 
as well as himself.)

I imagine the irony of, self-loathing with which, Snape as Head of 
Slytherin House firmly reminding his kids that *Slytherins stick 
together* while he, *unlike* any of the Slytherins on the *Dark* Side, 
*had* betrayed his Slytherin school friends.

> It makes it a matter of essentialism, rather than existentialism: 
> he was _always_ better than all the rest of them by his very nature
>, and so he made a choice that none of the rest of them could ever 
> have made. I find this idea...oh, I don't know. Distasteful, I 
> suppose. Both distasteful and severely disappointing. 

Ouch! I have to plead guilty here. Trying to figure out Severus's 
backstory, I tried to figure out why a person would join the Death 
Eaters and then turn against them at a time when they still seemed to 
be winning. The feelings I figured he had are well expressed in 
Tabouli words: << He is respected, but somehow the respect of fellow 
torturers and the cruel, half-mad Voldemort who Crucios his own 
followers is more disturbing than gratifying.>> But for that to work 
for me, he had to have never liked killing and torturing in the first 
place. I can't think why someone who did enjoy the killing and 
torturing would turn against the Death Eaters while they were winning 
unless they had some dramatic event. Like the young man who was in a 
USAmerican NeoNazi group whose principles included euthanasia of 
'defectives', then his son was born with cleft palette, then one of 
his comrades mentioned "In a decent society, he would have been 
euthanised at birth" and the father's reflex reaction was "I don't 
want to associate with people who want to kill my child". 

Judy wrote:

> Well, in PS/SS, Dumbledore says that Snape could never forgive 
> James for saving his life. (snip) I don't think Snape would like 
> Dumbledore if Dumbledore had saved Snape's life. 

While Dumbledore doesn't lie, he does tell truth in idiosyncratic 
ways that his listeners don't understand correctly until they get 
more information. I don't believe that his statement above means that 
Snape would automatically hate anyone who saved his life under any 
circumstances. Maybe part of Snape's feeling against James is that he 
thinks James was viewed as a hero and given points for saving Snape's 
life that never would have been in danger except that James had 
deliberately (in collusion with Sirius) put him in that danger. That 
would be sort of like the people who deliberately set a fire (that 
becomes one of the summer's terrible forest fires) who that they can 
be viewed as a hero for reporting the fire and helping fight it.

Kyrstyne wrote:

> would Dumbledore knowingly put a man in a position where he could 
> possibly be killed? 

How could he not? This is war. People do get killed. Besides, death
is just 'the next great adventure', not the worst thing that could 
possibly happen. (Dumbledore certainly wouldn't *conceal* the danger 
from the person who was going on the mission, but how *far* would he 
go to make sure that the volunteer really understood how much danger 
there was?)

Amanda wrote:

> It has made us focus on the passageways to such an extent have 
> forgotten there may be others that not even the marauders found 
> (as witnessed by the Chamber of Secrets).

In PoA, when Fred and George give the Map to Harry, they point out
the passages on it and say: "Don't bother with the one behind the 
mirror on the fourth floor. We used it until last winter, but it's 
caved in -- completely blocked." I've always thought that the passage 
that caved in last year was a reference to the passage in CoS which 
was blocked by the stone fall, altho' I've never been quite sure how 
the passage that goes down from first floor bathroom can also start 
on the fourth floor.

Tex wrote:

> Where was the tunnel to the Chamber before Hogwarts got indoor 
> plumbing?

(The following rant has no canon.)
Hogwarts has had indoor plumbing since the beginning. The wizarding 
folk have had indoor plumbing (with hot and cold running water, 
showers, and flush toilets) at least since they lived in Atlantis, 
maybe longer than that. All Muggle indoor plumbing was invented by 
Muggles who had visited wizard houses, seen the conveniences there, 
and tried to figure out how to have the same conveniences at home. 

Muggle technology up to steam engines and gaslight (and maybe the 
early railroads) was an attempt by clever Muggles to do what they had 
seen wizards doing by magic. Then electricity was harnessed, for 
motors, telegraph, and electric light, and from then, Muggle 
technology advanced from its own internal momentum, and the wizards 
tried to invent magical ways to do the nifty stuff they saw Muggles 
do. Evidence for that last claim: the name Wizarding Wireless 
Network. It obviously was an imitation of Muggle wireless, because it 
copied the Muggle name, which was because it came upon the heels of 
telegraph, which is 'wire'. But the wizards didn't have 'wire' so why 
would they name it 'wireless'?  

(We Muggles still speak of 'wiring' money to a relative in urgent 
distress in another city, altho' only old people like me still say 
'news wire' and 'wire service' for press agencies like AP and TASS 
(whose new Russian instead of Soviet acronym I can't remember))






From midwife34 at aol.com  Sat Feb  9 14:45:34 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 14:45:34 -0000
Subject: Why TR went bad( WAS Re: Yo, Lollipopsers!  Why did TR go bad?)
In-Reply-To: <a421tg+47a5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a43cme+qpt0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34937

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" <jbryson at r...> wrote:
> Was it because of Moaning Myrtle?
> 
> I ask this as I realize the living Myrtle was @ Hogwarts when TR
> was there.  
> 
> Was he just pranking around with the Chamber of  Secrets thing 
> until the Basilisk killed Myrtle? 
> 
> Was Myrtle his unrequited love? 
> 
> Did  Olive Hornby give Myrtle so much pain because she was 
> jealous of TR's love?
> 
> Was TR driven into darkness from guilt over Myrtle's death?
> 
> Where was the tunnel to the Chamber before Hogwarts got indoor
> plumbing?
> 
> I doubt Myrtle had any kind of influence on TR what-so-ever.As for 
Olive Hornby,  Myrtle just happened to be an easy target to pick on 
due to her physical appearance and lack of social skills. I was 
wondering if Myrtle was one of those wizards that had muggle parents, 
since that is the targets TR sought out for the basilisc. TR, even at 
an early age, was power hungry, and opening the CoS was deliberate on 
his part. I don't think he really thought about the consequences of 
creating havoc at Hogwarts at that early age, as he was devastated 
when he was told he would have to return to the orphanage, as 
Hogwarts was closing, until the monster was rounded up and the CoS 
was closed, which led to his framing Hagrid for the crime. As for the 
plumbing at Hogwarts: The pipes that the basilisc used were always 
there. Indoor plumbing has been a civilized concept since the Roman 
age which predates the 1000 years that Hogwarts has been open.So I 
would say that Myrtle's bathroom has probably always been there, but 
has more than likely been updated over the millineum, thus no one 
would really think anything of a large pipe in the wall in an already 
existing bathroom.
> 
The impression I get from the background story we get for TR is that 
TR resents all muggles because of the way his father treated his 
mother when he found out she was a witch, then had him put in an 
orphanage after he was born. Unlike Harry, he chose to react 
negatively to his situation, whereas Harry took a different path. 
Considering that personality traits are somewhat inherited, I can see 
why TR would turn bad as his father and the Riddle family were not 
very well liked in muggle society and were considered complete *&*-
holes by the town folk. To my knowledge of canon, and what little we 
know of the Potter family, they were likable people, and probably 
more emotionally resilient. As for the Evan's, I think Petunia was 
the only narrow minded, petty one in Lily's family as her parents 
were proud of Lily's abilities. Then you have to look at propensity 
as TR was sorted into Slytherin because he has that trait of being 
willing to do "whatever it takes to succeed" whereas Harry who had 
several traits that made it hard for the sorting hat to find a house 
for him to go in. Harry , more or less, chose Gryffindor for himself 
as he was more ethically grounded,( at age 11, it probably had more 
to do with the fact that Ron and Hagrid had already told him negative 
things about Slytherin, and Malfoy, whom he did not like, was in 
Slytherin) 

Jo Ellen




From cindysphynx at home.com  Sat Feb  9 17:51:07 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 17:51:07 -0000
Subject: Torn page, ambush flavoured LOLLIPOPS, Avery
In-Reply-To: <002e01c1b157$5ed3e260$fa50dccb@price>
Message-ID: <a43nib+3lbc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34938

Tabouli wrote (about the torn page):

> 
> Yeah, it did seem out of character for the usually stringently law-
>abiding teacher-respecting book-revering Hermione.  I file this 
>under "slightly dubious plot devices", because after all, Harry 
>*needed* to find that page in her hand, didn't he?  Couldn't 
>Hermione have taken notes on a separate piece of paper to be found 
>instead?

I hope no one has mentioned this already, but I figure Hermione is 
free to deface any book in the library because she is quite adept at 
repairing things with magic.  Let's see.  She repaired broken glass 
and Harry's glasses (I think).  Replacing a page in a book ought to 
be child's play, right?

Tabouli again (about the ambush):
 
> WHAT?  (Tabouli sits up indignantly).  HUH!!  This is a gross 
libel!  Just yesterday in my message "Filch/Mrs Norris (FLIRTIAC) & 
still more LOLLIPOPS" I specifically sang a soothing sea shanty at 
you (Cindy) and wrote a Personalised LOLLIPOPS-friendly Ambush 
Scenario!  

<Cindy bolts upright, scrambles around in day-old messages>

Yes, yes.  I do seem to have your chart here, Tabouli.  Yes, a 
history of LOLLIPOPS, an agreeable tendency to accommodate other 
reasonable theories.  Yes, everything seems to be in order.

Sorry 'bout that, mate.  I think I have developed something of a 
crush on George, mostly because he doesn't seem to want me and 
therefore is a challenge.  :-)  OK, so that's a total of four Ambush 
believers out of . . . 3700+ members.  Well, it's a start.

Elkins wrote (about the constraints of sticking to canon):

> (But I do find myself now wondering if I can really legitimately 
> respond to that last "Let Us Now Praise Minor Characters" Avery-
Works-
> For-the-Ministry-of-Magic post as I would like to, or if it needs 
to 
> be taken to OT-Chatter.)
> 
> <blinks>
> 
> Hey, wait a minute!  Cindy, aren't you a List Elf?
> 

Oh, you want me to speak as a List Elf instead of a Spinner Of Wobbly 
Theories?

::peels off trousers, pours self into over-sized oven mitt, squints 
menacingly::

Uh, I believe that official list policy requires all discussion on 
the main list to be based on the Harry Potter books and statements of 
JKR.  

Based on that crystal-clear standard, yeah, sure have a romp with 
Avery, so long as you make sure you agree with everything I said and 
labor to make the Avery theory even more compelling.

Cindy 




From mdawson.design at dial.pipex.com  Sat Feb  9 16:55:06 2002
From: mdawson.design at dial.pipex.com (Marjorie Dawson)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 16:55:06 -0000
Subject: Sirius WAS guilty!
References: <a4293c+qdkd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003201c1b18a$f87f9ac0$be86bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 34939

  In other words, give it up; Sirius knew what he was doing and the 
  Prank was his fault.  I'm willing to admit that Snape is unjustifiably 
  mean to Neville if you'll admit that Sirius is to blame for the Prank. 


  Oh I like it!  

  Sirius knew EXACTLY what he was doing, and like all young boys probably thought it was hugely funny to possibly send someone he disliked into danger.  The fact that he might die not really being the issue.  Snape is mean to ALL students - Neville is just the sensitive herbology type who seems to pick it up more than most. I assume that Snape knows about the fate of Neville'e parents.......

  FR


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





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Feb  9 18:26:52 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 18:26:52 -0000
Subject: Prank redux
Message-ID: <a43plc+c3c2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34940

Tex wrote:
>>Many astute Hogwarts students would have figured out Lupen 
wasa werewolf,  just as Hermione did.  Werewolves are 
interesting tokids. More so to wizard kids. There is a library.  A 
wizard _knows_what phase the Moon is in, and probably in 
which house, at any time. It's part of wizard life.

Snape's question for Black,  is: where does Lupin go during full 
moon? Or he may have followed the Maraudeers or just Lupin.<<

Judy:
>>'d say the books are pretty clear that Snape *didn't* know the 
Lupin was a werewolf.  I'd say this is a weak part of the plot -- 
Snape is smart, he should've figured it out.  But why would he 
run into the Shrieking Shack to face a deadly werewolf, if he 
knew?  Why not just tell his friends at school that Lupin was a 
werewolf?  (Perhaps he could have "let it slip" to the other 
Slytherins at breakfast, thus saving everyone a lot of time).  No, it 
seems clear that JKR intended Snape not to know about Lupin's 
lycanthropy.  Maybe Snape didn't have much contact with the 
Gryffindors, and didn't have much data about 
when Lupin was absent? <<

 
I think that at the time of the prank, werewolves must have been 
regarded as uneducable, as mentally ill or severely handicapped 
people were in the past (think Helen Keller). Lupin says, "It 
seemed impossible that I would be able to come to Hogwarts. 
Other parents wouldn't want their children exposed to me." 
Lupin's parents obviously thought he could be taught, but 
perhaps this was not a common belief.

There seems to be a fair amount of misinformation about 
werewolves floating around the wizarding world. Riddle speaks 
of werewolf cubs in CoS, so it must have been a widespread 
misconception about werewolves at that time. I have a feeling 
that, even in James'  time, most wizarding families considered a 
werewolf a disgrace and treated them even worse than the 
Dursleys treat Harry: either locking them in the attic and shoving 
food in under the door, or turning them out to wander or starve till 
they were picked up by the Ministry. Probably very few kids at 
Hogwarts in James' time had ever seen a werewolf at all, and 
those they had seen looked more like Escaped!Sirius.  

So even after Snape noticed that Lupin was disappearing every 
month (that's canon: Lupin says,"Severus was very interested in 
where I went every month.)" and  spotted Lupin crossing the 
grounds toward the willow with Madam Pomfrey (also canon), 
Snape never guessed "werewolf", just as I never guessed that 
my light-skinned blue-eyed blonde high school classmate might 
be an Afro-American (she was). 

Much as I enjoy shoveling speculation into the plot-holes, I think 
Sirius' motivation as given is enough. Now that Snape was 
watching the willow, they'd have to give up being animagi or else 
it wouldn't be long before The Marauders would  be expelled, 
Remus would be exposed, their furious and aggrieved parents 
would  _separate_  them (probably the worst consequence of all 
from a teenage point of view). No, something had to be done to 
stop Snape. Sirius probably figured Snape would get caught in 
the Willow and punished, not that he would be killed.  Sirius 
seems to have a very narrow focus, a sort of tunnel vision even 
as an adult, so he probably never stopped to think what it would 
be like for Remus if the worst happened, if Remus recovered his 
senses and found himself covered with blood, the torn remains 
of Severus Snape scattered all over the room (Pippin pauses 
while the Snape-haters savor the moment).  The "serve him 
right" sounds like something Sirius made up after the fact, to 
justify what he'd done in his own mind. Death's not a reality for 
teenage Sirius, it's something that happens to other people, not 
anyone *he* knows. Sirius hasn't had to relive this experience in 
Azkaban, since it's a happy thought that he got away with it, no 
one got killed and Snape had to quit spying on the willow (not 
stated in canon, but he must have, since he didn't find out any 
thing more).   Probably even Lupin felt at the time it was all for the 
best (death wasn't a reality for him either.) So Shack!Sirius hasn't 
reconsidered his actions from an adult perspective, which 
explains his lack of remorse. Lupin has, which explains his "er, 
amusing". 

What I wonder is how Sirius got off. Is it possible that he claimed 
that  *he* didn't know Remus was a werewolf? "Yes, Professor 
Dumbledore, I knew about the willow but I swear on Merlin's 
grave I'd no idea at all about Remus, I mean, how could I? .... I 
admit I wanted to get Snape in trouble. I thought if Snape got 
caught near the Willow, Slytherin would lose some points but I 
never dreamed...well, I suppose I've been  an idiot again, haven't 
I. Lucky thing James knew. Good old James." (The spirit of 
Merlin retaliates for this outrageous lie by dooming Sirius to 
spend twelve years in Azkaban.) Sirius would have to have been 
a splendid actor, but then we know he is, because he concealed 
the rest of his Marauder antics in any case.


This would add more fuel to Snape's fire in the Shack scene, for 
sure. Finally, an admission of what he's believed  all along but 
couldn't prove, that Sirius knew about Remus all the time. 

Pippin




From Whirdy at aol.com  Sat Feb  9 18:37:25 2002
From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 13:37:25 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius WAS guilty or just mean
Message-ID: <14c.89fc25f.2996c665@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34941

In a message dated 2/9/02 1:17:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
mdawson.design at dial.pipex.com writes:

<<  Snape is mean to ALL students - >>

I think not or my name isn't Draco Malfoy.

and it's not!

whidry



From Zarleycat at aol.com  Sat Feb  9 19:02:32 2002
From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 19:02:32 -0000
Subject: Prank redux; (Was Why did TR go bad; Prank;Avery
In-Reply-To: <a4293c+qdkd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a43ro8+brnn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34942

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:

> In other words, give it up; Sirius knew what he was doing and the 
> Prank was his fault.  I'm willing to admit that Snape is 
unjustifiably 
> mean to Neville if you'll admit that Sirius is to blame for the 
Prank. 

Yes!! Thank you, Judy, for coming up with a compromise that will let 
fans of both characters admit that their guy is sometimes an idiot, 
while still being able to console themselves that the other character 
is sometimes just as idiotic.  I will heartily admit that the prank 
was Sirius' fault, and continue to think Snape is beastly to Neville.

Marianne






From Zarleycat at aol.com  Sat Feb  9 19:23:24 2002
From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 19:23:24 -0000
Subject: Prank redux
In-Reply-To: <a43plc+c3c2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a43svc+b439@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34943

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:

snip of quite a nice summary of werewolf beliefs and Prank 
motivations.

 
> What I wonder is how Sirius got off. 

What do you mean? If you're saying that Sirius deserved to be 
expelled or sent off to Azkaban for this, obviously that didn't 
happen. But, we don't know from canon that he got clean away.  For 
all we know, he was a terrific Beater for his house Quidditch team 
and was removed from the team for the rest of his time at school.  Or 
he lost his house 500 points, thus causing them all chances to win 
the house cup. And, if his punishment was along the lines of the 
above, he would also have had to deal with the other members of his 
house being at least somewhat torqued off at him.  

Is it possible that he claimed 
> that  *he* didn't know Remus was a werewolf? "Yes, Professor 
> Dumbledore, I knew about the willow but I swear on Merlin's 
> grave I'd no idea at all about Remus, I mean, how could I? .... I 
> admit I wanted to get Snape in trouble. I thought if Snape got 
> caught near the Willow, Slytherin would lose some points but I 
> never dreamed...well, I suppose I've been  an idiot again, haven't 
> I. Lucky thing James knew. Good old James." (The spirit of 
> Merlin retaliates for this outrageous lie by dooming Sirius to 
> spend twelve years in Azkaban.) Sirius would have to have been 
> a splendid actor, but then we know he is, because he concealed 
> the rest of his Marauder antics in any case.
> 

Hmm.  I rather like this explanation, except for one thing.  With 
canon always telling us how close James and Sirius were, it seems 
unlikely that James would know about the tunnel and what was inside, 
and not tell Sirius.  So, if Dumbledore is willing to accept that 
James knew, I think he'd assume that there was at least a probability 
that Sirius knew, too.

Marianne, who thinks perhaps the spirit of Merlin is a bit on the 
harsh side!





From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Sat Feb  9 19:25:08 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 19:25:08 -0000
Subject: How to rescue "EWWWWW"
Message-ID: <a43t2k+d2rf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34944

/me is becoming obsessed with EWWW, but notes one consistent problem 
people have with it. How did Voldemort join LOLLIPOPS? And why would 
he care?

BTW, Cindy, just wanted to mention that I am a firm Ambush supporter, 
in some form or another. :-)

Anyway, here are several scenarios.

1. Snape tells Voldemort willingly. It seems everyone agrees that 
Snape and Voldemort do not sit around trading stories about lost 
loves.

2. Snape tells Voldemort unwillingly. First of all, why would 
Voldemort be looking for the information? Secondly, as someone pointed 
out, if Voldemort is so good at figuring out LOLLIPOPS, why doesn't he 
also detect more obvious things like Snape being a spy?

3. One of the DEs tells Voldemort. Likelier. After all, they went to 
school with Snape. They notice some reluctance on Snape's part to go 
after the Potters and peg it down to Lily. (Isn't this part of some 
Ambush theories?) All someone needs to do is pass it on to Voldemort. 

4. What of Peter Pettigrew?  I've noticed many LOLLIPOPS theories in 
the past have compounded Snape's pain by having James know about 
Snape's feelings for Lily. What if Pettigrew knew too? Recruited by 
Voldemort (and not by Snape, otherwise the whole set-up of PoA doesn't 
work), he tells all. And why? Not because he's concerned about Snape. 
Oh no, that's not our Pettigrew. Pettigrew hates Snape, just as much 
as Sirius, methinks. And he believes he can discredit Snape with 
Voldemort by "slipping" this out. (Pettigrew/Iago anyone? I also bet 
he turned Sirius against Remus.)

But then, why does Voldemort concoct the "ewwww" plan? Many have 
pointed out that Voldemort is hardly sentimental (assuming that he's 
joking when he calls himself sentimental in GOF, of course). 

But, if (unlike Pettigrew figures) Snape is essential to his plans 
(and Voldemort's search for eternal life's possible connection with 
potions comes into play here), Voldemort could see "ewwww" as a 
perfect way to get Snape back on track again.

Eileen

PS. The most important part of the EWWW theory, imho, is that it 
explains why Voldemort offered Lily her life, something that no other 
theory has, to my eyes, properly accounted for.




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Sat Feb  9 20:12:33 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 20:12:33 -0000
Subject: How to rescue "EWWWWW"
In-Reply-To: <a43t2k+d2rf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a43vrh+o80j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34945

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> /me is becoming obsessed with EWWW, but notes one consistent 
problem 
> people have with it. How did Voldemort join LOLLIPOPS? And why 
would 
> he care?

<snip possible explanations>

> PS. The most important part of the EWWW theory, imho, is that it 
> explains why Voldemort offered Lily her life, something that no 
other 
> theory has, to my eyes, properly accounted for.

George says he's willing to tackle that one.

What if Voldemort wanted Lily for himself?  Not because he was 
crushing on her or anything, but for strategic reasons?  Say there 
was some sort of prophecy (Trelawny's first accurate prediction, 
maybe?) along the lines of "Lily Potter's son will win the war for 
his father's side."  So Voldy, who has not has a decent Classical 
education, and therefore hasn't read Greek mythology, and therefore 
doesn't know that trying to mess with a prophecy is a sure-fire way 
to make it come true, decides he's going to turn this to his 
advantage by killing James and Harry and making Lily bear *him* a 
son.  But when he shows up in Godric's Hollow to try and pull this 
off, Lily insists on sacrificing herself, so Voldy says "Okay, fine, 
be that way, I'll just kill all of you -- that ought to take care of 
the stupid prophecy."  And the rest, as they say, is history.

There -- a fairly EWWW explanation that sounds like the sort of 
nasty thing that Voldemort might do, and does not require George to 
board any ships or swallow any LOLLIPOPS.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Sat Feb  9 20:25:37 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 20:25:37 -0000
Subject: How to rescue "EWWWWW"
In-Reply-To: <a43vrh+o80j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a440k1+e4tm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34946

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
I wrote:
> > PS. The most important part of the EWWW theory, imho, is that it 
> > explains why Voldemort offered Lily her life, something that no 
> other 
> > theory has, to my eyes, properly accounted for.
> 
> George says he's willing to tackle that one.
> 
> What if Voldemort wanted Lily for himself?  Not because he was 
> crushing on her or anything, but for strategic reasons?  Say there 
> was some sort of prophecy (Trelawny's first accurate prediction, 
> maybe?) along the lines of "Lily Potter's son will win the war for 
> his father's side."  So Voldy, who has not has a decent Classical 
> education, and therefore hasn't read Greek mythology, and therefore 
> doesn't know that trying to mess with a prophecy is a sure-fire way 
> to make it come true, decides he's going to turn this to his 
> advantage by killing James and Harry and making Lily bear *him* a 
> son.  But when he shows up in Godric's Hollow to try and pull this 
> off, Lily insists on sacrificing herself, so Voldy says "Okay, fine, 
> be that way, I'll just kill all of you -- that ought to take care of 
> the stupid prophecy."  And the rest, as they say, is history.
> 
> There -- a fairly EWWW explanation that sounds like the sort of 
> nasty thing that Voldemort might do, and does not require George to 
> board any ships or swallow any LOLLIPOPS.

That takes the cake as the most disgusting HP theory ever. :-) Good 
work! But even I can't go that far. It sounds like something Charles 
Williams might dream up, but being a Tolkien fan, I'm staying with 
"ewwww" proper. 

Still, this brings up an interesting point. You'd think Voldie would 
have a good classical education. After all, what to us is classics, is 
to them real life. He'd know a lot more about the nature of prophecies 
 than you and me. And yet, he sees no problems in going out and trying 
to prevent a prophecy? I'm sure that was the only thing he could do. 
But you'd think he'd be a bit more hesistant about it.

Then again, we're assuming a prophecy.

Eileen




From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com  Sat Feb  9 20:30:08 2002
From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 15:30:08 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How to rescue "EWWWWW"/Trelawny
Message-ID: <d0.2207a83b.2996e0d0@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34947

Marina writes: 

> What if Voldemort wanted Lily for himself?  Not because he was 
> crushing on her or anything, but for strategic reasons?  Say there 
> was some sort of prophecy (Trelawny's first accurate prediction, 
> maybe?) along the lines of "Lily Potter's son will win the war for 
> his father's side."  So Voldy, who has not has a decent Classical 
> education, and therefore hasn't read Greek mythology, and therefore 
> doesn't know that trying to mess with a prophecy is a sure-fire way 
> to make it come true, decides he's going to turn this to his 
> advantage by killing James and Harry and making Lily bear *him* a 
> son.  But when he shows up in Godric's Hollow to try and pull this 
> off, Lily insists on sacrificing herself, so Voldy says "Okay, fine, 
> be that way, I'll just kill all of you -- that ought to take care of 
> the stupid prophecy."  And the rest, as they say, is history.

Hmmm, maybe. I've often thought along those lines myself. However, if it was 
a prophecy, I don't think it could've come from Trelawny. In PoA Dumbledore 
says something along the lines of Trelawny making her second accurate 
prediction leading to the assumption that, of course, she had made a first 
accurate prediction. What we're looking for is something that has happened. 
"Lily Potter's son will win the war for his father's side" wouldn't fit that, 
because he hasn't won it yet. I know that wasn't the ONLY prophecy idea you 
had in mind, of course. ^^ 

Quick question: I must've missed a post, where did EWWW come from? Is it an 
acroymn for something or is everyone just emphasizing "eww!" as in "eww, 
that's gross!" ?

~Cassie~ 
 You are always gonna be my love 
 Itsu ka dare ka to mata koi ni ochite mo 
 I'll remember to love 
 You taught me how 
 You are always gonna be the one 
 Ima wa mada kanashii love song 
 Atarashii uta utaeru made 


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




From devin.smither at yale.edu  Sat Feb  9 21:24:25 2002
From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 21:24:25 -0000
Subject: Trelawney and the first prediction WAS Re: How to rescue "EWWWWW"/Trelawny
In-Reply-To: <d0.2207a83b.2996e0d0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a44429+82ic@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34948

(snip discussion of Trelawney's first real prediction possibly being 
"Lily Potter's son will win the war for his father's side", and 
therefore Voldemort wanted to have Lily carry HIS son, but got 
impatient when Lily insisted on dying for Harry)

Cassandra wrote:

However, if it was 
> a prophecy, I don't think it could've come from Trelawny. In PoA 
Dumbledore 
> says something along the lines of Trelawny making her second 
accurate 
> prediction leading to the assumption that, of course, she had made 
a first 
> accurate prediction. What we're looking for is something that has 
happened. 
> "Lily Potter's son will win the war for his father's side" wouldn't 
fit that, 
> because he hasn't won it yet. I know that wasn't the ONLY prophecy 
idea you 
> had in mind, of course. ^^

It's interesting that we are sort of discussing prophecies, and the 
inevitability of prophecies and your name is Cassandra, huh?

Anyway, hmmm, I don't think the possibility is eliminated that 
Trelawney predicted such a thing.  I don't think we necessarily have 
to be looking for something that has already happened.  Cassie, are 
you saying that there is some sort of time constraint on 
predictions?  I don't know.  In PoA, Trelawney predicted Pettigrew 
would escape that night and help his master back to power, and that 
took about a year to work itself out (if indeed it has completely 
worked itself out, perhaps he hasn't really come back to power in the 
manner T--as I will refer to Trelawney from now on--predicted).  No, 
I think it's perfectly possible that T predicted something that would 
happen in twenty years' time or something.  Or are you arguing 
something else that I just don't understand in terms of this possible 
first prediction?

Oh, I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN!  You're saying that Dumbledore called the 
first prediction accurate because it happened already, right?  
*thinks about that*  No, no, I don't think that quite lines up.  See, 
the second prediction hasn't really happened in its entirety yet when 
Dumbledore talks about it as being a "real" prediction.  The Dark 
Lord has in fact, NOT risen "again, with his servant's aid, greater 
and more terrible than ever he was" when Dumbledore says it was a 
real prediction, yes?  (Scary interlude: you mean Voldemort is going 
to be WORSE than he was during the war back in the day? oh dear)  I 
think Dumbledore was only referring to the trance state T was in both 
times she made a real prediction and that, therefore, the first real 
prediction need not have happened yet.  I'm sure that Dumbledore 
recognized by her speech and manner at the time the first prediction 
she made as one that was truly inspired, and therefore when Harry 
describes T's state (strange voice, rigid manner, eyes rolled up in 
her head), Dumbledore recognizes that it was another real prediction.

Personally, I think I will stick by my guess at the prediction which 
goes something like, "A (The last?) descendant of Godric Gryffindor 
will defeat the last descendant (or ancestor, whichever printing you 
believe) of Salazar Slytherin."  For me, it just makes the whole 
thing fit together very well.  I know this has been brought up 
before, but still--Godric's Hollow, the sword in CoS, "only a true 
Gryffindor" and all that jazz.  It also lends a sort of epic quality 
to the whole thing.  The descendants of two of the greatest wizards 
of all time determining the fate of the world, blahdy blahdy blah.  
This also makes sense to me because no other wizard relatives of 
Harry are living once his parents die, so it seems Voldemort (though 
it could just be bad luck) was trying to get rid of that whole side 
of the family.  Also explains why he wasn't particularly interested 
in killing Lily (though everyone is right about this being 
incosistent with Voldie's attitude about killing, I'm still not sure 
why one who says "Kill the spare" wouldn't just up and murder anyone 
standing in the way, maybe the original "ewww" is right on those 
lines).

A thought or two: HOW does Voldemort know about the first prediction 
(which seems likely given his apparent need to kill James and Harry, 
but not Lily)?  How does Dumbledore?  Were they both there when 
Trelawney made this first prediction (perhaps V was still Riddle at 
the time)?  T does not seem to remember her true predictions, so they 
can't have got it out of her after the prediction was over and she 
lapsed into normalcy (or at least, her own interesting brand of 
"normalcy").  How do D and V know?  Or is there a way that it's not 
necessary for the plot for V to know the first prediction that I have 
not recognized?

Devin, who is grinning right now because he can just see Voldemort 
pointing the wand at baby Harry, saying "Now, the prophecy can't be 
true because if it was, something like a miracle would have to happen 
right now."





From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  9 21:05:30 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 21:05:30 -0000
Subject: CoS entrance in modern bathroom
Message-ID: <a442uq+pjgv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34949

Some people have asked, "How did the entrance to the Chamber of 
Secrets, which was built 1,000 years ago, come to be in a bathroom 
with modern plumbing?"  

My theory:  You have to remember that the entrance is magic; that the 
entrance truly only comes into existence when the correct ritual 
(saying "Open" in pareltongue) is performed.  It isn't like the 
entrance is physically there, but hidden behind a secret panel.  The 
POTENTIAL for the entrance is always there instead.  Presumably, that 
room was something else at the school's founding, and was converted 
into a bathroom later.  No one found the entrance during the 
necessary renovations, because the entrance didn't physically exist.

Similarly, I bet if you took a sledgehammer to the wall at the 
entrance of Diagon Alley, you wouldn't find Daigon Alley on the other 
side.  It will only exist for you if you enter the correct way, by 
tapping your wand on certain bricks.

When the room became a bathroom, it also continued to be the room in 
which the entrance could be found.  I'm certain the Salazar Slytherin 
made sure when he cast the spell, that no matter how much the room 
changed over the years, it would continue to serve that "noble" 
purpose.  How did the snake come to be engraved on the pipe?  All 
part of the same spell cast by Salazar.  No matter what changes the 
room went through, something in the room would provide the key for 
his heir.





From tanie_05 at hotmail.com  Sat Feb  9 20:31:58 2002
From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 20:31:58 -0000
Subject: Sirius & deaths
In-Reply-To: <a41rce+jfpc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a440vu+jvof@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34950

Marianne wrote:
> Of course, I hope that Sirius will remain among the living at the 
end 
> of the series. And also will not have had an unfortunate encounter 
> with a Dementor...

I hope and think so, too. I mean we've known him for two books. We 
had misguided thoughts about him in PoA, then we got to know & love 
him a little more on GoF. I think he might be one of the ones left 
standing while everyone else has fallen in defeat.

> Several months ago someone on the list wrote that s/he thought that 
> Sirius would die by the end of the series because at that point 
Harry 
> would be leaving Hogwarts and ready to go out into the world.  I 
> can't buy that.  Simply being a 17-year-old doesn't make one adult 
> enough to find their way in the world.  Harry has never had the 
> benefit of living with any sort of father-figure.  I'd like to see 
> Harry living with an adult who cares about him, who can provide him 
> with a link with his parents, who has an understanding about the 
> trials Harry has already had to live through, and who can provide 
him 
> with some support when he needs it.  To my mind, Sirius is the only 
> person who fits the bill.  

Hmmmm...that would be nice. I mean living with someone who actually 
cared about him would be a dream for Harry, but I don't think that'll 
happen. Why? I'll explain, look down....And no, being 17 doesn't make 
you an adult. It depends on your mentality. (I know some 17-year-olds 
who are more immature than I am & I'm 14-going-on-15.:))

> Who will die?  Hagrid and at least one Weasley.  And the only 
reason 
> I'm throwing in a Weasley is that there are a bunch of them.  I 
think 
> it would be relatively easy to bump almost any of them off, except 
> Ron.  

Now, here's my chain of thought. I think that either one of the twins 
or Hagrid will die in OoP, but I'm leaning more towards Hagrid. Why? 
I have heard & read too many times about how someone close to Harry 
(who is also a fan) will be killed & how it'll seriously affect him. 
Ok, then let's look over our list of people:

Fred or George: They both adore (well, maybe that's too strong a 
word, but it's the best I got) Harry & he's pretty friendly with 
them. But if one of them dies, it'll also affect Ron, too. There's 
already some tension between Ron & Harry, what'll happen then? 
Hmmmmmm........we can only wait to see what'll happen. (I'm keeping 
my fingers crossed though.)

Hagrid: We know Hagrid really likes Harry & Harry likes Hagrid too.(I 
think there's some unnoticed "father/son" thing going on here, or is 
it just me? Oh well.) They seem to care about each other a lot. I 
mean, if you really look at it, Hagrid has been around a lot in 
Harry's life. He was the one who brought Harry to Privet Drive in the 
first place, then he was the one who "rescued" Harry from the 
Dursleys. He got Harry his first birthday present(Hedwig), & was the 
one who "introduced" him to the wizarding world. In turn, Harry has 
comforted Hagrid on many various occasions in all four books. Now if 
Hagrid were to die, I'm absolutely positive Harry's world may be 
turned upside down, especially if Hagrid died defending him, much 
like his parents....(I'll cry if it happens though. I like Fred, 
George, & Hagrid. I'd really rather none of our candidates would die 
& we could just plug in Snape instead... :) Sorry Snapists. :)

Now to the point I was on earlier. I don't think that Harry will live 
with Sirius. Why? Because I think he won't be alive to live with 
Sirius. That's right. As much as I love Harry, I really think he's 
going to die. Each book gets more & more dangerous for Harry. Let's 
brak it down:

In PS/SS, he figured out Quirrell couldn't touch him & used this too 
his advantage. Almost died, but D'dore stopped him. Unconscious for 3 
days, but he was okay when he woke up.

In CoS, our friend battled a basilisk & got pierced with a poisonous 
fang in his arm. Again almost died, if Fawkes had cried on his arm. 
(Good old Fawkes.) More dangerous than PS/SS since we had to depend 
on a bird.

In PoA, there was a werewolf on the attack. Here he was about to face 
the werewolf(Lupin) himself, if not for Sirius. More dangerous than 
the first two books, since we dealt with a wild werewolf.

In GoF, Harry faced the V-man himself, face-to-face. He just barely 
escaped with his life, due only to Priori Incantem of the two wands. 
(Good old Fawkes. :D) This outright beats the other books, since 
we're talking about Voldemort, the man who almost killed him at 1-
year-old. 

Now...if I didn't already know that there will be seven books, I 
would say that OoP would be the last book. I doubt Voldemort will 
repeat the same mistake & use his wand again to face Harry. I know 
he's not that stupid. I have no idea how he's gonna get out of this 
one. I just hope it'll be good. Oh well, until OoP comes out we'll 
never know. Keep your fingers crossed. :)

-Kyrstyne





From scarletnel at hotmail.com  Sat Feb  9 17:45:26 2002
From: scarletnel at hotmail.com (L. M.)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 17:45:26 +0000
Subject: Snape
Message-ID: <F196JiLyNfHgIu3q1vb0000053f@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34951


Hello there! I'm very new here and have not yet contributed, but have loved 
reading the daily posts! I just wanted to add my two cents on Snape - who I 
*adore*. If my comments are old news, forgive! :)

I've always felt that Snape doesn't truely hate Harry at all, but is making 
himself an integral part of building Harry's character. I mean anyone - even 
Harry - would be overwhelmed by the fame and fortune that fall effortlessly 
into his life....it never seems to end. He literally wins at everything. 
(Exceptions too minimal in comparison to note.)
Snape knows he is one of the male role models in this boy's life and it just 
so happens his preferred nasty temperament comes in handy while being the 
best that he can be for his purpose in Harry's life.
I've always preferred the Slytherins - if one thinks about it, they truely 
have the greatest challenge and glory before them: The ultimate decision to 
choose between good and evil. Though not all of them *are* evil, all evil 
ones come from them. To make that choice, they need gryffindor's courage, 
ravenclaw's intellect, and hufflepuff's integrity.
Perhaps Snape realizes that (as the Sorting Hat told Harry) Harry has the 
potential to be *either* Gryffindor or Slytherin....and wants to do his part 
to keep Harry focused on the "right" side of the fence. As for Snape's 
behavior toward the Slytherin kids, he would *have* to be the opposite. He 
already has their attention as their leader, but he must make himself 
likable to them in order to really influence them. Thus, the kids who will 
actually be choosing between good and evil truely do have one of the "good 
ones" as a "father" figure in their lives.
Just my randoms thoughts....though I humbly confess they could be the 
desires of a woman in love with Severus Snape!
Later, DaeyMoon

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com





From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  9 20:31:02 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 20:31:02 -0000
Subject: Lollipops torpedo/ aging D'dore/house-elves
Message-ID: <a440u6+vf0d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34952

I'm willing to believe that young Severus was fond of Lily.  It fits 
well with his hatred of James.  But I'm having trouble imagining him 
full-blown obsessed with her.  The people who knew Lily always tell 
Harry that he has his mother's eyes.  I have trouble imagining Prof. 
Snape leaning in close to Harry during potions class, staring into 
those green eyes so much like his lost love's, and saying all the 
nasty things he does. Granted, Snape is now seeing those eyes in a 
face that resembles James, but even still...  Harry is just as much 
Lily's son as she is James's.  Could Severus really loathe Lily's 
child if he loved Lily?

I find it more plausible that Snape decided to try and save the 
Potters by spying (for I do believe he did so) because he owed James 
for saving his life.  In PoA, Dumbledore tells Harry, "When one 
wizard saves another wizard's life, it creates a certain bond between 
them...This is magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable, Harry."  
And if Severus felt some affection for Lily, it probably strengthened 
his resolve.
-----
On another topic, I'm currently rereading GoF, and I was struck by 
how often Harry notices that Dumbledore is getting old and weary 
looking.  I almost feel like Dumbledore, getting on in years, is 
staying alive on sheer willpower.  Dumbledore knows that Voldemort is 
out there, plotting his return, and Dumbledore knows that he is 
the "general" who will have to lead the fight against him when he 
does return.  He doesn't dare allow himself the "next great 
adventure" of death until he knows that Voldemort has been stopped.  
Any thoughts?

---
Someone else may have already said this (I'm behind in reading 
posts!), but regarding Dobby apparating at Hogwarts:  Yes!  We see 
him do this on more than one occasion.  I think in future books we 
are going to learn just how powerful house-elf magic is.  Not only 
can they apparate at Hogwarts (something wizards cannot do), but they 
do not need wands to do the same charms that wizards tend to require 
wands for.  Also, remember that Winky was powerful enough to serve as 
Barty Jr.'s jailer.  Yes, he was under daddy's imperius curse, but 
even when he was starting to rebel against it, Winky was able to 
force Jr. to go with her into the woods.  He only got free of her 
when she was stunned by the MoM wizards. There has to be some reason 
Hermione started S.P.E.W. (besides being a person of high moral 
fiber).  I think the house-elves will prove powerful allies for 
the "good" side.





From mellienel2 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  9 21:47:13 2002
From: mellienel2 at yahoo.com (mellienel2)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 21:47:13 -0000
Subject: CoS entrance in modern bathroom
In-Reply-To: <a442uq+pjgv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a445d1+spm0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34953

> When the room became a bathroom, it also continued to be the room 
in 
> which the entrance could be found.  I'm certain the Salazar 
Slytherin 
> made sure when he cast the spell, that no matter how much the room 
> changed over the years, it would continue to serve that "noble" 
> purpose.  How did the snake come to be engraved on the pipe?  All 
> part of the same spell cast by Salazar.  No matter what changes the 
> room went through, something in the room would provide the key for 
> his heir.

OR - Mr. Services to the School, Tom Riddle, may have had a hand in 
there. Salazar left it for his heir to find - Tom did, and arranged 
it so that it once again became accessible. 




From fiatincantatum at attbi.com  Sat Feb  9 21:48:31 2002
From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 16:48:31 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius & deaths
In-Reply-To: <a440vu+jvof@eGroups.com>
References: <a41rce+jfpc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C6552DF.28663.2078266@localhost>

No: HPFGUIDX 34954

On 9 Feb 2002 at 20:31, tanie_05 wrote:

> Fred or George: They both adore (well, maybe that's too strong a 
> word, but it's the best I got) Harry & he's pretty friendly with 
> them. But if one of them dies, it'll also affect Ron, too.

hmm, yes, this would be a "difficult death", although not for the reason you 
mention ... for one twin to lose another is terrible, worse than losing a 
brother or sister for singletons.  The surviving twin could very well be in a 
much worse condition than anyone else in the family, including parents.

  
-- 
Fiat Incantatum 
fiatincantatum at attbi.com

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




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Sat Feb  9 21:56:18 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 21:56:18 -0000
Subject: Limits of UC /"EWWWWW"
In-Reply-To: <d0.2207a83b.2996e0d0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a445u2+rlpd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34955

I'm using a borrowed computer with an awful keyboard, so I'll have 
to be brief.

Grey Wolf said:
>I'm of the opinion that AK is extremely difficult to cast, taking 
>years of practice and great powers...<

Well, Fake Moody definitely implies this.  However, this leaves the
question of how that wimp, Peter Pettigrew, was able to AK Cedric in
GoF.  Maybe Voldy somehow made Peter more powerful?  But Voldy refers
to Peter as a "poor wizard", or something similar, so I'd guess not. 


Marina said:
>>> What if Voldemort wanted Lily for himself?  Not because he was
>>> crushing on her or anything, but for strategic reasons?  Say there
>>> was some sort of prophecy... along the lines of "Lily Potter's son
>>> will win the war for his father's side.".... <<<

And Eileen ("lucky_kari") responded:
>>That takes the cake as the most disgusting HP theory ever. :-)

I agree completely, and I'm very relieved that someone came up with a
more disgusting theory than mine!  I have to admit that Marina's
theory does an excellant job of explaining why Voldy was willing to
spare Lily.  Perhaps we can call it the "even EEWWer" theory?

 Cassie asked:
> Quick question: I must've missed a post, where did EWWW come from?
> Is it an  acroymn for something or is everyone just emphasizing
> "eww!" as "eww, in that's gross!" ?

It's just ewww as in, "eww, that's gross."  The original title was
"TEWWW EWWW to be TrEEEEW."  I believe Tabouli came up with that 
phrase. 

Speaking of whom, Tabouli, I did read the "Filch/Mrs Norris (FLIRTIAC)
& still more LOLLIPOPS" entry you posted.  (And I love the FLIRTIAC 
acronym!)  I just can't bear the thought that any of Snape's 
contemporaries knew of his love for Lily.  I can see a number of
scenarios where Voldemort finds about about Snape's (theoretical) love
for Lily.  Perhaps as part of becoming a Death Eater, each follower of
Voldy must take Veritserum and answer the question "What do you
want?" (shades of Babylon 5!) or look into a Mirror of Erised with 
Voldy looking over their shoulders.  It certainly would be to Voldy's 
advantage to know his followers' deepest desires. 


-- Judy




From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com  Sat Feb  9 22:02:19 2002
From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 17:02:19 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trelawney and the first prediction WAS Re: How to rescue ...
Message-ID: <104.10c88ba9.2996f66b@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34956

In a message dated 2/9/2002 4:43:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
devin.smither at yale.edu writes:


> Oh, I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN!  You're saying that Dumbledore called the 
> first prediction accurate because it happened already, right?  
> *thinks about that*  No, no, I don't think that quite lines up.  See, 
> the second prediction hasn't really happened in its entirety yet when 
> Dumbledore talks about it as being a "real" prediction.  The Dark 
> Lord has in fact, NOT risen "again, with his servant's aid, greater 
> and more terrible than ever he was" when Dumbledore says it was a 
> real prediction, yes?  

Hmm, you've got me there. How about this though: Even if Dumbledore 
recognized the trace there would still have to be some evidence in part or in 
full that the prediction was real. In the case of the "Dark Lord rising with 
the aid of his servant' prediction, Wormtail did escape and was (or at least 
Dumbledore might've assumed he was at the time) returning to Voldemort. So 
what I said still goes before, except I'm adding that the prediction may have 
only come true in part so far, which is why Dumbledore would call it 
accurate. 

This would work better than the 'seeing her go into the trance' theory, I 
think, because we don't know that he saw her go into the trance. And it works 
if he did see her go into the trance. ^^

~Cassie-who is noticing how more and more people associate her with Cassandra 
the Prophet ^^~ 


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




From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com  Sat Feb  9 22:06:39 2002
From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 17:06:39 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CoS entrance in modern bathroom
Message-ID: <aa.64c0b1d.2996f76f@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34957

In a message dated 2/9/2002 4:48:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
mellienel2 at yahoo.com writes:


> OR - Mr. Services to the School, Tom Riddle, may have had a hand in 
> there. Salazar left it for his heir to find - Tom did, and arranged 
> it so that it once again became accessible. 

Or maybe Wizards, being more advanced in some feilds than muggles, had 
working toilets in the time of Salazar Slytherin. Maybe it was even a Wizard 
who introduced the plumbing system to muggles. 

~Cassie~ 


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




From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com  Sat Feb  9 22:32:56 2002
From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 17:32:56 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape
Message-ID: <42.21f59549.2996fd98@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34958

DaeyMoon writes: 


> 
> 
> Hello there! I'm very new here and have not yet contributed, but have loved 
> 
> reading the daily posts! I just wanted to add my two cents on Snape - who I 
> 
> *adore*. If my comments are old news, forgive! :)
> 
> I've always felt that Snape doesn't truely hate Harry at all, but is making 
> 
> himself an integral part of building Harry's character. I mean anyone - 
> even 
> Harry - would be overwhelmed by the fame and fortune that fall effortlessly 
> 
> into his life....it never seems to end. He literally wins at everything. 
> (Exceptions too minimal in comparison to note.)


A nice thought.  I sort of agree, but not totally. IMO, Snape doesn't hate 
Harry, but he doesn't like him either. When I was younger (and even now 
sometimes) when someone was mean to me I assumed they hated me. I think the 
thing with Harry is that Snape seems to hate him without any reasonable 
explaination. The Dursley's "hate" Harry because he's a wizard, the 
Slytherins/Malfoy "hate" Harry because, well, he's the Gryffindor who nearly 
defeated LV. Not to mention some others inbetween. Snape, on the other hand, 
just seems to hate him. 

I'm of the mind that Snape thinks along the lines of someone who thinks "If 
you save my life I owe you mine." 

Maybe Harry is Snape's promise to James. It would work if your theory is 
true. It makes me think of a line Dumbledore said in SS/PS

"...Now he can go on hating your father's memory in peace." 

Or something like that. Well, maybe Severus isn't at peace. Maybe he never 
will be until Harry never needs protection. 

Now comes Why I think Severus dislikes Harry part. Harry is driving him mad. 
Harry doesn't seem to get the full scope of things and doesn't appreciate 
that, in his own way, Severus is trying to do something nice for him. 

But what I was attempting to say before was that Harry might want an 
explaination for why Snape hates him (even if Snape doesn't hate him) and has 
not gotten a satisfactory one. 

However! I do not want to turn Severus into a nice guy. I like him just as he 
is: Sadistic, surly, and overly petty ^^  I'm only saying he isn't rendered 
incapable of doing something nice. 

> 
> Just my randoms thoughts....though I humbly confess they could be the 
> desires of a woman in love with Severus Snape!
> 

Ah! More of us seem to be cropping up these days ^^

~Cassie-Keeper of What Makes Severus Snape Lovers Randy For Him and Keeper of 
the Dark Wizard Bitch, Quirrell ^^~
 You are always gonna be my love 
 Itsu ka dare ka to mata koi ni ochite mo 
 I'll remember to love 
 You taught me how 
 You are always gonna be the one 
 Ima wa mada kanashii love song 
 Atarashii uta utaeru made 


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




From midwife34 at aol.com  Sat Feb  9 22:46:13 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 22:46:13 -0000
Subject: CoS entrance in modern bathroom
In-Reply-To: <a442uq+pjgv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a448rl+106bp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34959

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jklb66" <jklb66 at y...> wrote:
> Some people have asked, "How did the entrance to the Chamber of 
> Secrets, which was built 1,000 years ago, come to be in a bathroom 
> with modern plumbing?"  
> 
> My theory:  You have to remember that the entrance is magic; that 
the 
> entrance truly only comes into existence when the correct ritual 
> (saying "Open" in pareltongue) is performed.  It isn't like the 
> entrance is physically there, but hidden behind a secret panel.  
The 
> POTENTIAL for the entrance is always there instead.  Presumably, 
that 
> room was something else at the school's founding, and was converted 
> into a bathroom later.  No one found the entrance during the 
> necessary renovations, because the entrance didn't physically exist.
> 
> OK, someone look this up because I can't find my CoS. I thought 
that the large pipe that the kids found behind the sink lead to a 
network of subterranean tunnels. Harry followed the tunnel system , 
once he, Ron, and Lockhart slid down the pipes to a giant open area 
where the chamber doors were. Wasn't ginny lying in front of the 
doors to the chamber and wasn't TR standing next to the entrance of 
the chamber that had held the Basilisc? The point I'm making is that 
the giant pipe was not the entrance to the CoS, but possibly one of 
many ways to get to the tunnel system that lead to the CoS as the 
giant snake, once freed, was making the rounds of the castle through 
this ancient plumbing system.

Jo Ellen




From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com  Sat Feb  9 22:51:35 2002
From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 22:51:35 -0000
Subject: LOLLIPOPS responds to the attack on Snape/Lily!
In-Reply-To: <004401c17f8f$691f62c0$8834c2cb@price>
Message-ID: <a4495n+upvb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34960

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> wrote:
> 
> Koinonia (quoting me):
> >>As for Snape leaving Voldemort before James and Lily died and the 
> >reasons therefor (?), those of you who got to the end of my 
> >Unauthorised Biography of Severus Snape.... 
> 
> >Sorry, I don't read any fanfic :-)
> 
> Accckkk, it *wasn't* fanfic!! 

Maybe I will read it if I can find the time :-)


 > In a final billow of the LOLLIPOPS sails, look, I have some 
>sympathy for those who think any form of tragic romance sub-plot is 
>too eww to be treww, blaggh, spare us the smoochy stuff.  Once upon 
>a time, I would express similar sentiments and would sigh gustily 
>whenever the obligatory Love Interest violined her/his way onto 
>centre stage.  But that doesn't mean that (a) it's too yikky to be a 
>possibility, and (b) JKR couldn't do a tasteful job of it.  I'm sure 
>she can.  After all, she handled the Yule Ball with great style.  >>>
(Wangoballwime?)

Just where do I start?  I have been away for so long but I just 
couldn't resist getting in the middle of all this utter baloney of 
Snape loving Lily  ;--)  Also, there is no way I could read all the 
Snape/Lily theories so I am just going to give my take on this AGAIN.

First off I don't have any problem with Snape having a love 
interest.  I don't even mind a story with a tragic romance and I do 
like some smoochy stuff.  What I don't like is this picture of Snape 
being so in love with Lily that he turned into this DE who is now 
just a bitter man.  What a boring story IMHO.  How much more 
interesting if Snape did love or still loves someone other than 
Lily.  Someone had a nice short post about Snape and another love but 
I couldn't find it.

So let me see if I get this right.  Snape comes to school at the age 
of 11 and somewhere along the way he falls for Lily.  Now during this 
time Lily and James fall in love.  So just where is Snape?  Just 
sitting around watching James and Lily and dreaming of what will 
never be?  Snape is so in love with Lily that he joins the DE's, then 
realizes what a mistake that is, goes to Voldemort and begs him to 
spare Lily but doesn't give a darn if James and Harry dies, dreams of 
having Lily once James is out of the way, and so on.  Is this all 
that there is to Severus Snape?  Some pitiful guy in love with a 
woman that he never had but still dreams of having (I hate unrequited 
love stories).  Even after she marries and has a child?  Then Lily 
dies and Snape is so heartbroken over this woman he never had that he 
spends the next years of his life becoming bitter and mean.  Why in 
the world would Dumbledore hire a man like that to teach at Hogwarts? 
Would Dumbledore hire a man who had made a deal with Voldemort to 
spare Lily but kill James and Harry?  I just can't see that.  I just 
can't see Snape hating Harry so much because of his unrequited love 
for Lily.  C'mon.  The man is now in his 30's.  Is Snape going to 
spend the rest of his life wasting away over Lily?  What a loser and 
I don't believe Snape is that sort of person.  

How much more interesting if Snape had a love interest that died, 
remained a DE, or left him because of his becoming a DE.  I could 
think of other examples but that is enough.

I just don't like this Snape/Lily stuff at all UNLESS Lily truly 
loved Snape and not James. Sorry Tabouli....I will never join the 
LOLLY club.  Of course I will never join the 'Snape is part Dementor' 
club either but I won't get into that now.

Just some other rants concerning Snape:

I don't know why this guy gets blamed for everything.  He gets blamed 
for the Shrieking Shack, Fudge and the Dementor, etc.  It amazes me 
that there are those who believe there is no good in this man and 
refuse to look at things from his viewpoint or from how Harry and the 
other kids perceive him. Snape isn't just some ignorant, worthless 
teacher.  

I don't want to see Snape turn out to be nothing more than a man in 
love with Lily. There just has to be so much more to him.

Koinonia 

   



     

 





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Sat Feb  9 23:21:55 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 23:21:55 -0000
Subject: Limits of UC /"EWWWWW"
In-Reply-To: <a445u2+rlpd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a44auj+pvve@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34961

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:
> Grey Wolf said:
> >I'm of the opinion that AK is extremely difficult to cast, taking 
> >years of practice and great powers...<
> 
> Well, Fake Moody definitely implies this.  However, this leaves the
> question of how that wimp, Peter Pettigrew, was able to AK Cedric 
in
> GoF.  Maybe Voldy somehow made Peter more powerful?  But Voldy 
refers
> to Peter as a "poor wizard", or something similar, so I'd guess 
not. 
> 

I suspect Voldy think everyone except himself and possibly 
Dumbledore is a "poor wizard."  He seems pretty full of himself.

I always thought that to successfully cast AK, the caster must truly 
and totally wish the victim dead without the slightest twinge of 
fear, conscience or doubt.  It's not like a gun, where you can kill 
someone even if you feel kinda bad about it.  AK can only be cast 
totally in cold blood, and that's why it's unforgivable.

And while we're on that topic -- what were Lupin and Black planning 
to cast on Peter in the Shrieking Shack before Harry stopped them?  
Were they actually going to AK the guy, or are there some forgivable 
killing curses out there?

> 
> Marina said:
> >>> What if Voldemort wanted Lily for himself?  Not because he was
> >>> crushing on her or anything, but for strategic reasons?  Say 
there
> >>> was some sort of prophecy... along the lines of "Lily Potter's 
son
> >>> will win the war for his father's side.".... <<<
> 
> And Eileen ("lucky_kari") responded:
> >>That takes the cake as the most disgusting HP theory ever. :-)
> 
> I agree completely, and I'm very relieved that someone came up 
with a
> more disgusting theory than mine!  I have to admit that Marina's
> theory does an excellant job of explaining why Voldy was willing to
> spare Lily.  Perhaps we can call it the "even EEWWer" theory?

Woo-hoo!  I win the Most Disgusting Theory award!  I've always 
wanted one of those.  Let's see... I'd like to thank Pauline Reage, 
the Marquis DeSade, Anne Rocquelaire, and all the little people who 
made this award possible.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Sat Feb  9 23:48:36 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 17:48:36 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: Prank redux
Message-ID: <F110k9DJTdQ9Pmxg6L400012d6c@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34962

Pippin wrote:
Sirius
>seems to have a very narrow focus, a sort of tunnel vision even
>as an adult, so he probably never stopped to think what it would
>be like for Remus if the worst happened, if Remus recovered his
>senses and found himself covered with blood, the torn remains
>of Severus Snape scattered all over the room

Sirius seemed like that kind of teenager--act, think about consequences 
later. That would have definitely been a bad experience for all parties 
involved--Snape gets torn limb from limb and Lupin gets the eternal guilt of 
having killed someone in werewolf form. Can anyone else see Sirius telling 
Lupin, "But he deserved it Moony, he really did!" I can only imagine that 
Lupin losing his temper would ensue.

>Sirius hasn't had to relive this experience in
>Azkaban, since it's a happy thought that he got away with it, no
>one got killed and Snape had to quit spying on the willow

But think about what he was possibly reliving among the Dementors. Hearing 
James' voice in his head, telling him Sirius that he had failed him, 
discovering James and Lily's bodies at the house, etc and so on and so 
forth...

>So Shack!Sirius hasn't
>reconsidered his actions from an adult perspective, which
>explains his lack of remorse.

As someone else has said, its hard to make personal growth while being stuck 
in a place like Azkaban for twelve years.

>What I wonder is how Sirius got off. Is it possible that he claimed
>that  *he* didn't know Remus was a werewolf? "Yes, Professor
>Dumbledore, I knew about the willow but I swear on Merlin's
>grave I'd no idea at all about Remus, I mean, how could I? .... I
>admit I wanted to get Snape in trouble. I thought if Snape got
>caught near the Willow, Slytherin would lose some points but I
>never dreamed...well, I suppose I've been  an idiot again, haven't
>I. Lucky thing James knew. Good old James."

*imagines IrrationalTeenager!Sirius saying that* I can see that. With the 
wide innocent eyes and charming good looks...but surely Dumbledore would 
have seen through it?

(The spirit of
>Merlin retaliates for this outrageous lie by dooming Sirius to
>spend twelve years in Azkaban.)

Makes you wonder who got the shorter end of the stick, eh?

Liz (who thinks that fire batons are evil)

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




From rachelrenee1 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  9 23:55:36 2002
From: rachelrenee1 at yahoo.com (rachelrenee1)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 23:55:36 -0000
Subject: Torn page (LOLLIPOPS removed, sadly)
In-Reply-To: <a43nib+3lbc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a44cto+52n9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34963

Tabouli wrote:

> > Yeah, it did seem out of character for the usually stringently 
law-
> >abiding teacher-respecting book-revering Hermione.  I file this 
> >under "slightly dubious plot devices", because after all, Harry 
> >*needed* to find that page in her hand, didn't he?  Couldn't 
> >Hermione have taken notes on a separate piece of paper to be found 
> >instead?
 Then Cindy responded:

> I hope no one has mentioned this already, but I figure Hermione is 
> free to deface any book in the library because she is quite adept 
at 
> repairing things with magic.  Let's see.  She repaired broken glass 
> and Harry's glasses (I think).  Replacing a page in a book ought to 
> be child's play, right?

Ya know, after reading the preface of Quidditch Through the Ages, I 
am suprised Hermione was not severely bruised and battered about the 
head after defacing a library book in such a fashion!  Surly Madame 
Pince would have enchanted the book so that a page torn out would 
carry a heavy penalty!

Rachel




From graceofmyheart at hotmail.com  Sat Feb  9 22:30:23 2002
From: graceofmyheart at hotmail.com (flower_fairy12)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 22:30:23 -0000
Subject: Against Harry - rumour
Message-ID: <a447tv+k2i5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34964

I saw something interesting on a website just now. It's a rumour 
about Book 5...

"As previous conflicts have involved Harry & Ron vs Hermione and 
Harry & Hermione vs Ron, it has been suggested that this time Harry 
will be on the receiving end as his friends gang up against him."

I think this is really interesting, and it is something I hadn't 
thought of before. What do you think?

Rosie


http://magic-hogwarts.com







From graceofmyheart at hotmail.com  Sat Feb  9 22:43:21 2002
From: graceofmyheart at hotmail.com (flower_fairy12)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 22:43:21 -0000
Subject: Sirius & deaths
In-Reply-To: <a440vu+jvof@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a448m9+pv2j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34965

I really dont believe that Sirius will be killed. He is like Harry's 
family, he was close to Harry's parents. He (tries to) look after 
him, by giving him advice and being there. Surely this is just what 
Harry needs, what with Voldemort on the loose. The death of Sirius 
would probably push him over the edge.

JK Rowling said that a fan of Harry's would die, did she not? And she 
also said that Ginny would play a much bigger role in Book 5. A 
connection, perhaps?

I think so. Ginny seems a more likely candidate where death is 
concerned. Think about it...there are many Weasley's in the book, at 
least one can afford to hop it off to heaven (sorry!)

Rosie

http://magic-hogwarts.com





From mdawson.design at dial.pipex.com  Sat Feb  9 23:37:07 2002
From: mdawson.design at dial.pipex.com (mdawson.design at dial.pipex.com)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 23:37:07 +0000
Subject: Wouldn't you be mean if your house students turned in poor work??
In-Reply-To: <14c.89fc25f.2996c665@aol.com>
References: <14c.89fc25f.2996c665@aol.com>
Message-ID: <1013297827.3c65b2a3dfb32@netmail.pipex.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34966



Yes All, methinks.

Draco has been getting poor marks from all his teachers - refer to CoS - 
Draco & his father in Nocturne Alley & their conversation about Draco's 
poor marks (and specifically about muggle born Hermione(subject of 
discussion re book damage elsewhere).

I very much doubt if Snape would give give good marks to a poor student - 
professional pride et al.

So I stand by what I said, although some people might not class it as 
being *mean*

I don't hold with the LOLLIPOPS theory either :-)

FR






From siskiou at earthlink.net  Sun Feb 10 00:27:17 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 16:27:17 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius & deaths
In-Reply-To: <a440vu+jvof@eGroups.com>
References: <a440vu+jvof@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <13361285346.20020209162717@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34967



Hi,

Saturday, February 09, 2002, 12:31:58 PM, tanie_05 at hotmail.com wrote:

> Hagrid: We know Hagrid really likes Harry & Harry likes Hagrid too.(I 
> think there's some unnoticed "father/son" thing going on here, or is 
> it just me? Oh well.)

No, it's not just you.

>  They seem to care about each other a lot. I 
> mean, if you really look at it, Hagrid has been around a lot in 
> Harry's life.

Definitely more than Sirius (unless he plays a huge role in
GoF, which I've barely started).

Although, maybe Hagrid doesn't quite come across as very
strong "father material". He sometimes seems more like a
peer than an authority figure, after you get over the first
impression (his imposing size).

I'd say at this point Hagrid's death would maybe be harder on
Harry than his godfather's death.

And harder on me, too.

I seem to be not that affected by the Sirius/Snape syndrome
<g>.

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





From porphyria at mindspring.com  Sun Feb 10 03:49:18 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 19:49:18 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Where's the Canon? (Part Two) -- Fans, Subversion, Snape & the DEs
In-Reply-To: <a3smft+ajf5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <294CE14F-1DD9-11D6-9B09-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34968

On Wednesday, February 6, 2002, at 05:49 PM, Elkins wrote:

> Now, where were we?  Ah, yes.  Subversive reading.
>
> Subversive reading tends to proliferate wherever there is reader
> anxiety, or wherever there exists a strong conflict between reader
> approval and reader discontent...visible
> manifestations of that conflict Rebecca referred to earlier between
> authorial intent ("what is actually suggested by the text") and
> reader desire ("the way a reader imagines things ought to be").

I'd like to jump into this thread <said Porphyria who will probably 
prove to be more un-subversive than will amuse Elkins ;-) >

For starters, I'm interested in summing up a few areas of potential 
reader unrest in the HP series to see if anyone else would like to 
discuss them. You mention two specific instances of incongruous themes 
yourself, which are:
1. Blood will tell vs. Choice over blood (this often comes up when the 
question "is Harry heir of Gryffindor?" is asked)
2. Slytherin=evil vs. overall humanism and moral complexity expressed 
elsewhere (will we see more interesting Slyth characters in the future?)

We could add others sources of reader anxiety, such as:
3. Frustrations of being an adult reading a series which is designed to 
be suitable for a child or young adult audience (i.e. certain issues 
like teen pregnancy or drugs seemingly will never be addressed; sex gets 
glossed over)
4. Cross cultural issues: i.e. non-British readers might either not 
understand or not care for the book's typically British features
5. Inconsistencies of genre: the series combines elements of 
fantasy/fairy tale (in which one typically finds archtypical roles with 
distinct functions) with that of the mystery (where characters are often 
not what the seem and break type), plus other genres as well: boarding 
school, coming-of-age, and certainly satire. Do these genres combine in 
a satisfactory way or are they often at cross-purposes?

These factors certainly affect they way we speculate, and why some 
speculations diverge wildly from others. Do these factors effect how we 
enjoy the series? Are they flaws or signs of complexity? Are there other 
fissures that I'm leaving out? Does anyone have any issues with the 
writing style?

Moving on:

> Now, to some extent _all_ reader speculation is subversive.  Like
> fanfic, speculation represents a reader's attempt to assume, if only
> temporarily, the mantle of authorial power; it is therefore an
> intrinsically subversive act -- as, for that matter, is immersive
> reader engagement itself.  In order to engage with the text on an
> emotional level, we _must_ insert ourselves into that space which
> lies between Absolute Canonical Fact and That Which Canon Does Not
> Prohibit; by doing so, we cannot help but impose our own desires upon
> the text.  Some degree of subversion is inevitable whenever we engage
> deeply with a work of fiction.

I'm interested in your assertion that all speculation (and fanfic) is 
inherently subversive.  This would be a strictly literary subversion: 
when a reader wrests the text from the author and imposes their own 
desires upon it, when they assert, in effect, that they can write the 
series better than the author, or they understand the characters better; 
this is an authorial subversion. If I understand you correctly, this 
subversion is independent of the content of the individual reader's 
content; one does not necessarily have to offer a controversial reading 
in order to effect this type of subversion.

Furthermore, I'd like to ask if all speculation and fanfic *must be* 
predicated on frustrations with the text. Is there such a case where a 
fan simply becomes so enamored with the fictional world (here the 
'Potterverse') or with some of its characters that they simply wish to 
become more of an active participant? That they basically wish that they 
could have written the series themselves, so they want to add to it? Or 
does all emotional involvement require some sort of frustration? If not 
then authorial envy (wanting to write it yourself) and anxiety with the 
text (and its consequent tendency to produce readings against the grain) 
would be two separate forms of subversion.

> When a work of fiction is presented in serialized form, as the HP
> books are, it even further encourages this subversive aspect of
> reading.  The incomplete nature of the serial offers the reader an
> additional level of indeterminacy in which to imagine and to
> speculate -- more room to "play," if you will -- and also invites
> readers to trespass on grounds that are normally off-limits.  Readers
> of Shakespeare, for example, may feel free to speculate about Iago's
> motivations, but they cannot debate the actions he takes within the
> scope of the play itself: these are already canonically set.  Readers
> of serialized fiction, on the other hand, both can and do speculate
> about even those things which _will_ eventually become canonical
> certainty; they are permitted to exercise their imagination over even
> those aspects of the text which normally fall firmly under the
> authorial aegis.

Here I'd like to add that the HP series itself actively and consciously 
encourages speculation due to the way that it's written. Apart from it's 
serialized format, each book is in the form of a puzzle, and the series 
as a whole (we imagine) is also in the form of a puzzle. A throw-away 
line or a scarcely mentioned character in one book can suddenly have 
enormous significance in a future book. Sometimes. And sometimes crazy 
plot twists seem to come out of the blue. So I'd say this text more than 
others (more than a fan-characterized series like Star Trek, for 
instance) deliberately invites the reader to imagine future plot 
developments; it's a mutually conscious game between the author and the 
readers. I guess my point here is, even if wresting authorial control 
from JKR is subversive, it's still, in this case, sort of her own darn 
fault. So, does this make it less subversive? ;-)

<...I had to snip a lot or this would be an unwieldy reply, sorry!>

Moving on once again, to the discussion of Snape as standing in possible 
opposition to the series' problematic stances of 'all Slyth are evil' 
and the limits of individual choice:

> <deep breath>
>
> So.  To get back to the original topic under discussion, I suppose
> that my real question regarding Snape's relationship with his 'old
> Slytherin gang' was this:
<...>
>  "Given that Snape's popularity as a
> character is itself in some ways subversive -- we like him largely
> because he stands in _opposition_ to those aspects of JKR's work
> which strike us as annoyingly morally simplistic -- why then would we
> prefer to fall back on those very aspects of the work which we found
> so unsettling in the first place when we try to imagine Snape's
> relationship with his old DE colleagues?"
<...>
> I still maintain that the most likely answer to the question is
> simply that people feel the need to paint the other DEs blacker than
> black, so that Snape's grey can seem lighter in comparison.  And
> frankly, I find that a bit disappointing.

Well, for one thing I think you're setting up a false opposition between 
Snape and the rest of the text. In other words, one doesn't necessarily 
like Snape because he stands in opposition to the rest of the text. I 
don't think one needs to have an acute frustration with the main thrust 
of the story in order to find Snape intriguing. I also think that the 
evident 'moral simplicity' of the text was always more complicated, 
always a form of misdirection, and it's simply getting clearer as each 
book comes out. This series often shows that in an uncertain world one 
occasionally has to lie, cheat, steal and injure your classmates in 
order to take the ethically sound action. I'd say Snape is comfortably 
nestled into the overall gray area of this mileu. You remark that you 
think that JKR seems to like Snape less than many of her readers. I'm 
not convinced of this, and no I don't believe everything she says in 
interviews. I think she places a lot of importance on his character but 
she's not willing to admit to her readers anything that will spoil the 
surprises of future books. I also think she leaves a lot of hints that 
might seriously tempt the reader to imagine him as being different than 
what he seems, and as I said this is a series where heavy reader 
speculation is consciously encouraged by the structure of the narrative. 
So while Snape-speculation might be subversive on the literary level 
that you describe, it does not naturally follow that it will be 
subversive in the usual 'controversial' sense of the term.

As to black and gray: you suggest that the impulse to blacken his peers 
in order to lighten him up is disappointing. I respect what you mean 
here, I honestly do, but I'd add that Snape's very grayness is a source 
of fascination. In other words, it's not always the case that wimpy, 
uptight fans might need to whiten him up to make him palatable (and here 
I'm speaking as a wimpy, uptight fan myself). But rather, his function 
in the text (and by extension his evident personality) has a very 
uncategorizable, indeterminate quality. He doesn't seem to belong 
anywhere: he is in some sense a failure at being a bad guy (something in 
his DE experience didn't agree with him), but he's a malevolent and 
occasionally frightening good guy. He often appears to have Harry's 
worst interests at heart, and Harry still has to force himself to 
acknowledge that Snape *probably* isn't trying to kill him. Yet there is 
evidence elsewhere that the safety of the student body and Harry in 
particular is of paramount importance to him. He constantly makes 
threats he never follows through on which makes the reader wonder if his 
demeanor is out of synch with his actual intentions -- if he's actually 
acting, and to what extent and why. And on a personal level, he seems at 
odds with himself. It seems his fondest desires might have something to 
do with getting honor and recognition (i.e. his drooling over the Order 
of Merlin, his evident jealously of Harry's fame, his fury over any 
disrespect), but if his greatest contribution to the cause of good is 
spying, then his heroism must always remain under wraps. He takes great 
pride in his talents, but has moments of sharp insecurity. Lastly, from 
what we do know about his youth, he spent it jealous of and obsessed 
with a group of 'popular' guys even thought he evidently had a clique of 
his own to belong to. Why?

Well, he seems to be a character fraught with internal and external 
contradictions. He has this 'neither fish nor fowl' quality which IMHO 
is a little subversive in itself. So in some cases the impulse to 
imagine his peers as being securely black is an effort to highlight this 
perverse, 'neither' quality of his, and the temptation to imagine him as 
never *quite* fitting in with them can be read as an extension of his 
uncategorizable quality. How could he fit in with them when he never 
seems to fit in anywhere? Granted, IRL people are complicated and still 
have close groups of friends. But I'm saying his function as a character 
in the text is one which is profoundly indeterminate, and what we see of 
his personality mimics this motif. Hence the impulse to preserve this 
theme in speculating his backstory.

> For one thing, if Snape really _was_ always a cut above all of the
> other DEs -- morally, ethically, spiritually, intellectually, or what
> have you -- then to my mind that seriously devalues his eventual
> defection to the side of Good.  It makes it a matter of essentialism,
> rather than existentialism: he was _always_ better than all the rest
> of them by his very nature, and so he made a choice that none of the
> rest of them could ever have made.  I find this idea...oh, I don't
> know.  Distasteful, I suppose.  Both distasteful and severely
> disappointing.

Again, I understand and respect your problem with this, but I think the 
essentialism vs. existentialism issue has dangers on both sides. On the 
one hand, as you say if he was inherently better than his peers, then 
what's the big deal that he should prove 'good' in the end? But on the 
other hand, people can't change their natures, and can often only change 
their actions with much difficulty, so any dramatic change from all bad 
to all good would be narratively unsatisfying for the reader as well. He 
can't just flip a switch; that would undermine the value and effort of 
his choice to change as well. So what we could imagine instead is a 
character whose 'nature' was always inconsistent and prone to 
conflicting impulses, someone who was never quite sure where he stood, 
and it took a lot of angst to finally make a decision.

Now I expect here you'd object that, yes that's true, but then why 
wouldn't the same opportunity for conflict be afforded to all his 
friends? After all, all humans are complicated. And you'd be right. I 
can only counter to say that I think the text highlights Snape's 
conflict and indeterminacy in a particular way and wants the reader to 
sympathize with it (yes, I really feel he's written as sympathetic). 
He's designed to stand out for the artistic purposes of contrast. Which 
again, might be unrealistic and frustrating -- but every text needs 
focal points.

Besides, I like the idea of him envying the young Mrs. (pre-Mrs.) 
Lestrange her conviction, but never really being able to feel it 
himself. Wouldn't it be nice to be that positive about something? But 
really it's hard to force yourself when a secure position doesn't come 
naturally. So yes, I'm willing to grant the text a few extreme 
characters to make him more sympathetic in comparison -- or at least 
more peculiar.

And Mrs. Lestrange *is* sexy, so you can creep out from behind that 
coffee cup. ;-)

Well, I hope I've made some kind of point here, although I'm not sure 
what kind.
~~Porphyria





From porphyria at mindspring.com  Sun Feb 10 04:28:51 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 20:28:51 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Responsibility for the prank (was the Veritaserum theory)
In-Reply-To: <a41svr+f2rh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <AF6D804D-1DDE-11D6-9B09-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34969

> > "Sirius here played a trick on him which nearly killed him, a trick
> > which involved me--"

> > To which Sirius replies that it served Snape right for sneaking
> around always trying to get them expelled.

> > Lupin continues, adding "Sirius thought it would be -- er --
> amusing, to tell Snape all he had to do was prod the knot...

In characterizing Lupin's description of the prank, I said:

> > Lupin clearly lays the blame for this on Sirius' peculiar sense of
> > humor. He sounds annoyed here, as well he should be since he was an
> > unwilling participant.

And Marianne asked:

> Why do you think Remus sounds annoyed?? There is nothing in canon to
> indicate that his tone of voice, actions or expression show any
> indication of annoyance or anger as he tells this story.? I read it
> somewhat differently - that "-- er-- amusing" seemed to me to
> indicate that Lupin was struggling for a word to use to slide this
> whole thing by without revealing any more than he had to.?

I agree there is no indication of his tone of voice. I based my 
interpretation partly on the fact that Lupin has just finished 
expressing his guilt and remorse for being potentially dangerous in his 
antics as a teenage werewolf. Then the way he phrases his description, 
with "a trick which involved me--" sort of jutting out from the end of 
the sentence; I read this as being a little accusative.

As to the "-- er --" I think normally Lupin is pretty eloquent and 
tactful, so my take was that he seems like he's trying to gloss over 
something unpleasant here. I interpreted that as his frustration with 
Sirius. Lupin doesn't want to bring up a hostile memory, especially now 
that he knows his good friend is probably innocent, but he can't quite 
tell this story without stumbling.

Plus, why wouldn't he be annoyed? He's not the type to want someone else 
to use him as a weapon, or even a source of terror.

And why would he be trying to keep from revealing something 
incriminating about Snape if his sympathies lie with Sirius?

> I always
> felt that he wanted to keep everyone's focus on Pettigrew in the
> Shrieking Shack and that discussion of this incident would have taken
> a lot more time to fully explain to the Trio.

I agree that this is a weird time and place for the two of them to be 
reminiscing over their school days. Nonetheless, Lupin goes on for most 
of Chapter 18 explaining various things. Sirius is at parts eager to get 
on with it, but that doesn't stop him from interjecting his own 
editorial remark in the middle of Lupin's story and thus prolonging it. 
Lupin himself seems inclined to talk on and on.

> But if there were extenuating circumstances,
> > wouldn't Sirius admit to them, if only to excuse himself in Lupin's
> > eyes?
>
> He must have found some way to explain or excuse himself in Remus'
> eyes, as the prank did not seem to destroy their friendship.

Maybe he apologized to Lupin? I can see Lupin forgiving him for a little 
recklessness, especially since he was guilty of the same thing in other 
circumstances.

> I do think there is more background to this incident.? I dont' think
> Sirius was tricked, potioned, charmed, imperioused, or somehow forced
> into this because he was the victim of some sort of magic.? I'm of
> the opinion, and I have no canon basis for saying so, that Sirius did
> this of his own free will, but the reason he did it was because he
> had some sort of provocation, some sort of incident involving Snape
> that set him off at this particular time.?

Well, I know I can't change your mind. :-)

> And, yes, Sirius can't get past the slimy Snape figure, just as Snape
> can't get past the arrogant, strutting James figure. These two are so
> much alike in some respects...

True, I think the text wants us to read them as parallel.
~~Porphyria




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





From tanie_05 at hotmail.com  Sun Feb 10 02:04:28 2002
From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 02:04:28 -0000
Subject: Lily & Snape???
Message-ID: <a44kfc+59ro@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34970

Hey to anyone reading this. I have a question about this whole Snape 
& Lily romance thing: Is this based on fact? Or are we just 
theorizing about the generation of the Marauders & gang? Just was 
curious.

-Kyrstyne





From margdean at erols.com  Sun Feb 10 03:54:17 2002
From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 22:54:17 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily & Snape???
References: <a44kfc+59ro@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C65EEE9.66AC888E@erols.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34971

tanie_05 wrote:
> 
> Hey to anyone reading this. I have a question about this whole Snape
> & Lily romance thing: Is this based on fact? Or are we just
> theorizing about the generation of the Marauders & gang? Just was
> curious.

Let's say it's a theory that seems to some of us to account for
certain facts, such as Snape's jealousy of James Potter.  I mean,
Snape may be good at holding grudges, but I can't quite believe
that at the age of 35 he's still stewing over the fact that James
was a better Quidditch player than he was.  Sexual jealousy,
OTOH, has a notoriously long shelf life.


--Margaret Dean
  <margdean at erols.com>



From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Sun Feb 10 03:31:14 2002
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 19:31:14 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione, Dobby, Memories and Harry Works Alone!
In-Reply-To: <157.897991c.2994a16b@aol.com>
References: <157.897991c.2994a16b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <129120489089.20020209193114@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34972


Thursday, February 07, 2002, 7:35:07 PM, Whirdy at aol.com wrote:

Wac> 1.  Why were there no repercussions when Hermione tore a page out of an old 
Wac> book in the CoS.

My theories:
The books in the Hogwarts Library are "regenerating" -- You tear a page
out, and a new duplicate page grows in its place.  Or maybe Hermione
performed a basic Text-Copy spell onto a piece of scrap paper.
(Either way, Wizards don't need Xerox machines.)

-- 
Dave




From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com  Sun Feb 10 03:34:01 2002
From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 22:34:01 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily & Snape???
Message-ID: <61.1aaeca5b.29974429@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34973


-Kyrstyne asks: 

> Hey to anyone reading this. I have a question about this whole Snape 
> & Lily romance thing: Is this based on fact? Or are we just 
> theorizing about the generation of the Marauders & gang? Just was 
> curious.
> 
> 

It's only theorizing (thank goodness!). If you like the idea, I recommend 
getting ticket aboard the *clears throat* Good SHIP LOLLIPOPS. Me, I'm 
staying on dry land. ^^ 

~Cassie~ 


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




From oppen at cnsinternet.com  Sun Feb 10 04:53:24 2002
From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2002 22:53:24 -0600
Subject: Longbottoms and practical jokers, again
References: <1013234822.4758.31961.m10@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <006c01c1b1ee$e07b6300$ebc71bce@hppav>

No: HPFGUIDX 34974


>

>    From: "ssk7882" <theennead at attbi.com>
>
> My favorite subversive, Eric Oppen of "Frank Longbottom Was
> Judge Dredd On Acid!" fame,

*grins and takes a bow*  Thenkyew, thenkyew.  I try to specialize in
thinking outside of the usual boxes we build for each other.  I didn't say
that Frank Longbottom _was_ "like Judge Dredd on acid," but I _did_ bring up
the possibility that he, or he and his wife together if they were both
Aurors, were targeted because of the Aurors' admittedly abusive behavior
during the last parts of Vold War One.  We know of imprisonment without
trials, trials basically conducted like the worst parts of the French
Revolution (all they were missing was the guillotine; good job they weren't
in France---however, I wonder how many long-stretch Azkaban prisoners would
_ask for_ the National Razor if they were offered that choice?) and use of
the Unforgivable Curses by Aurors.  If some Aurors ran amok on people who
later turned out to be innocent *coughcoughSiriuscoughcough* or abused their
powers in other ways, a motive for torturing Aurors even after Voldemort had
clearly lost the war becomes apparent.  We _know_ the Ministry of Magic's
not exactly good at ferreting out bad 'uns---personally, I'd as soon
soul-kiss a coral snake as give McNair the job he now holds.  It took a
"grass" from within the ranks of the Death Eaters themselves to uncover
Rookwood, of the Department of Mysteries.  _What if some Aurors were, or
even still are, corrupt?_


wrote:
>
> > Somebody above (forgive me for not remembering who; I get this list
> > as a digest) said that she didn't like the Weasley twins, Gred-and-
> > Forge.
>
> That was me.  No, I really don't care for the twins at all, although
> I do appreciate their kindness to Harry.  But I can't help it.  I
> simply _loathe_ practical jokes, and pranks, and pranksters.
>
> Well...all except for those named "Eric Oppen," that is.

Or Robert A. Heinlein, writing as "Lazarus Long" in _The Notebooks of
Lazarus Long._  I don't have the text in front of me, and my copy's about to
fall apart *snif* but ISTR that he said that a practical joker's wit should
be rewarded appropriately.  Staking out on an anthill should be reserved
only for the true masters of the art.
>
> > It occurs to me that they _might_ be prime candidates for the role
> > of Next Evil Overlord.  I've never been fond of practical jokers---
> > remember, Batman's _worst_ and most frequent enemy is called the
> > Joker.  Sure, they're popular and well-liked _now,_ but apparently
> > so was Tom (Lord Voldemort)Riddle when _he_ was at Hogwarts.
>
> Ah, and you will notice that both Tom ("I Am Lord Voldemort") Riddle
> *and* "Gred-and-Forge" have been known to play word games with their
> own names.
>
> Coincidence?  Oooooh, I don't *think* so.
>
> > I'm not saying that they _will_ turn evil---I'm just saying that the
> > possibility is definitely there...
>
> At this point, I'd call it a well-nigh canonical certainty.

I think a lot would depend on how _they_ react when the joke is on them?
This would be a real clue to their characters...if they can laugh just as
loudly when they've been the victims of a practical joke, there's plenty of
hope for them still.
>
> Barb, on the other hand, remains unconvinced:
>
> > Plus, if pranks were a sign of basic inner rottenness, it is
> > doubtful that JKR would have related Sirius' youthful indiscretions,
> > which make him look far worse than the twins (Snape could have been
> > killed).  And yet, he's just a peach of a guy now.
>
> Indeed, it is quite clear that JKR labors under the sad delusion that
> practical jokes are <shudder> funny.  I do believe, in fact, that
> she's even been suckered into believing that they are fundamentally
> good-humored.  "No harm in it, honest."  "It's all in fun."  "What's
> the matter, can't take a joke?"
>
> Bah.
>
> Of course, *we* know that in actuality, the practical joke is a
> particularly vile and passive-aggressive form of sadism which
> operates by forcing its victims to actively *collude* in their own
> degradation by pressuring them to swallow down humiliation with a
> shaky laugh and a strained smile.  *We* know that prank-pulling is
> really nothing more than a form of bullying which hides its true
> malice behind an unconvincing mask of jollity and good-humor.  *We*
> know that there is really nothing in the least bit amusing or good-
> natured about the practical joke, that far to the contrary, it is
> just one of the many means by which the socially popular assert their
> dominance over their less charismatic peers.
>
Oh, well said, well said!  This post is going into my permanent archives!

*claps vigorously*

It's funny, isn't it...I seldom ever see practical jokes played in the SCA,
a medieval-reenactment organizaton I'm involved in.  We take courtesy and
manners seriously...and many of us can and do participate in fairly-serious
mock-medieval-tournament combat.  Prank the wrong person, and you may be
called to answer for it, either in front of the group's authorities, or on
the field of honor.  Or, in extreme cases, to a Court of Chivalry (sort of
our version of a court-martial; very seldom convened).

> But apparently JKR doesn't.  And since she's writing the books, not
> us, the pranksters get to be the canonical Good Guys.
>
> Pah.
>
> I know that I, for one, *detest* practical jokers.  My hatred for
> them runs all the way to my very marrow; I will bitterly resent them
> until the end of time; I will...

Considering what happened to you at summer camp, I not only can't blame you
a bit, but I can say that if that had happened to me, the Authorities at
that camp would have soon wished they'd lined those little b*tches up
against the nearest wall and shot them...my dad was a lawyer, my mom was a
harridan when she got mad, and _neither_ of them would have sat still for
that for one second.  If my mom had caught those little _porci ex grege
diaboli,_ (swine from the devil's herd) in the act, she'd have probably sat
down, explained to them (speaking very slowly and clearly and using diagrams
and hand puppets) why what they were doing was wrong...and then taken a
baseball bat and made them think they'd died and been reincarnated as the
Anvil Chorus.

>
> > If anything, it's folks who carry grudges to the nth degree that
> > consistently get painted as evil in the HP books, not pranksters.

I don't carry grudges to the "nth degree," but I like to say that I suffer
from Corsican Alzheimer's, where you forget everything but a grudge.  :}
>
> <Elkins blinks, then looks away from the computer screen, suddenly
> terribly preoccupied with the apparently difficult task of lighting
> her cigarette>
>
>
> Actually, I'd say that it's not so much grudge-holding as *envy* that
> is the Grand Sin of the Potterverse.  Holding grudges is certainly
> bad, but envy (itself often one of the underlying reasons for the
> grudge-holding) seems to me to be the Potterverse's real corrupting
> force.  Its effects on Snape are obvious, but there's also Crouch Jr.,
> whose hatred of the other DEs seems to be primarily motivated by his
> bitter envy of their relatively suffering-free lives, and Draco
> Malfoy, whose envy of Harry seems at times to be pushing him to
> something close to *derangement,* let alone Darkness.  And while
> Pettigrew has never 'fessed up to envy as a prime motivating factor
> in his betrayal of the Marauders -- preferring to stick closely to
> the Cowardice Defense -- I think that most readers assume that envy
> played a not-inconsiderable role there, as well.

Not to mention Voldemort...he probably envied the daylights out of the other
students with their intact families.  Not that I can lay my hand on my heart
and say that I blame him for this, but letting it sour and corrupt him to
the extent that it apparently did...face it, nobody goes from being
handsome, popular, charismatic Tom M. Riddle, Head Boy of Hogwarts, to that
_thing_ we saw at the Little Hangleton graveyard without a _lot_ of effort.
He could have taken all sorts of lovely positions in the wizarding world
(the Ministry of Magic, just for starters) but instead, he embarked on this
quest for _power._  If he had been content with what he was and who he was,
instead of being warped out of true by envy, would he have even considered
doing what he had to do to gain the power he gained?

Of course, ol' Voldie's sort of a standing warning against _most_ of the
Seven Deadlies, except for Gluttony and Lust.

>
> I find myself wondering when Hermione's going to have to stare down
> envy.

Either when one of her two pals starts dating seriously, and she is no
longer _the_ Girl in their lives ("What?  You told _her_ that...and not
me?") or when she's faced for the first time in her life with real, serious
competition in the academic line.




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Sun Feb 10 11:34:49 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 22:34:49 +1100
Subject: Sirius as Mr Cocky Charisma, Snape as Victim Turned Bully
Message-ID: <004e01c1b227$0afe6f40$2324ddcb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 34975

Elkins:
> *We* know that there is really nothing in the least bit amusing or good-
> natured about the practical joke, that far to the contrary, it is
> just one of the many means by which the socially popular assert their
> dominance over their less charismatic peers.

I agree wholeheartedly with the overall sentiments of this, but also I think practical jokes aren't always that.  It depends on their content and style of execution.  There is such thing as a non-malicious, non-victimising, genuinely clever practical joke which even the victim finds funny.  Done in light-hearted affection, rather than out of a desire to ridicule.  Of course, a lot of people *think* they've hit on one of these and can't accept that they haven't succeeded (leading to the jinfuriating "Oh come on, it was just a joke, where's your sense of humour?" line).

With regard to victimising people, especially at high school, I find it interesting to look at what happens after people leave school.  I have met quite a few ex-charismatic-victimisers who, like Sirius, are well into adulthood and show no signs whatsoever of remorse.  Indeed, they engage in almost exactly the same behaviour as Sirius - a bit of a smug, callous snicker and a "God, but they were just so revolting and pathetic, they were just asking for it!"  I have tried (in a rather less confrontational way than I would like to be able to) to point out that there are a lot of people whose self-esteem never completely recovers from being persecuted and degraded all through high school, and the ex-charismatic-victimisers shrug indifferently, and sniff along the lines of for god's sake, those losers just need to grow up and get over it.  Apparently if you've always been cocky and popular, the fate of losers is of no consequence.

Delightful.

Needless to say, as someone who *was* victimised (and well before high school - they started when I was 4 and a half) I have very little time for such attitudes (though I'm still too timid to make a real stand).  However, I have also observed another subset of people who impress me almost as little... the victim-turned-bully.  I myself gradually clawed my way out of loserdom into relative social acceptance eventually, and so, eventually, do a lot of "losers" whose main problem is being forced into circles where they're never, ever going to fit or be respected.

I remember one in particular, who was subjected to charming jokes like being locked in a locker and rolled down a hill into a river as a teenager.  Then he grew up, and came top of everything at university and got himself a lot of kudos and respect.  The result?  He immediately jumped onto an academic high horse and started getting his revenge, on the academically unsuccessful, on homosexuals, and on anyone else whom he thought inferior to him (i.e. just about everyone).  As a fellow ex-loser, he didn't intimidate me nearly as much, and I laid into him with a sledgehammer along the "haven't you learnt *anything* from being persecuted and bullied yourself for things you couldn't help??" lines and ceased all contact with him.

In fiction, as in Sirius (My Cocky Charisma) and Snape (Mr Victim turned Bully), I'm quite happy to accept this sort of thing as an interesting portrayal of things I've observed myself in real life.  In reality, however, I brew with disapproval...

Krystyne:
> Hey to anyone reading this. I have a question about this whole Snape 
& Lily romance thing: Is this based on fact?<

Depends on what you mean by fact.  I coined the LOLLIPOPS acronym (though the theory was around well before this), and then conducted Extensive Canonical Research (!) to concoct a plausible backstory which fitted in with everything we currently know about (a) Snape and the Marauders' school days, (b) the events surrounding Snape's defection to and return from Voldemort and (c) Harry's family history.  It's a bit of a matter of adding two and two and getting five, but I think it's five and not ten... it does fit in well with a lot of otherwise inexplicable canon evidence.

Koinonia:
> I don't even mind a story with a tragic romance and I do 
like some smoochy stuff.  What I don't like is this picture of Snape 
being so in love with Lily that he turned into this DE who is now 
just a bitter man.  What a boring story IMHO.

Boring?  Acchhh, I think you're taking too simplistic an approach here.  Perhaps I should boil the whole LOLLIPOPS creed down to this: something horrible and unknown happened to Snape as a child which left him bitter, insecure and resentful, to the extent of learning curses to avenge and protect himself.  Victimised, abused and, inside, deeply lonely, he was very susceptible to falling painfully in love with a girl who seemed strong and smart enough to save him and, for the first time, showed him the kindness he secretly needed. When she chose someone else, he just continued in the direction where he was already heading. Hence tragic childhood as real reason, Lily as catalyst.

Snape reminds me of the "ex-loser" I described above, who is similarly brilliant, bitter, vengeful and long-term grudge-bearing, and did indeed have a rather bleak childhood and got bullied in high school, and who, dare I say it, developed a truly monstrous crush on me because I was kind to him: photos of me all over his wall, expounding his anguish to his bored friends for months (who would periodically contact me and say for God's sake, go out with him and shut him up), lurking for hours to give me lifts home, sitting melodramatically in dark rooms and threatening suicide/boyfriend homicide when I started a relationship with someone else (without it lessening his crush one iota) etc.etc.  Quite alarming.  Not stalking, exactly, but close.  And clung to the crush for absolute years, despite being told repeatedly I wasn't interested.  He only gave up when I finally let him have it in disgust when I saw him go from victimised cringer to cocky bully, racist (he's into the hierarchy of races in intelligence theory) and homophobe.

OK, so Snape wouldn't be as forthcoming about his feelings as that, but otherwise, the symptoms are there...

Tabouli (who realises with some worry that the above implies she is projecting herself into Lily's shoes... eeeg!)


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




From devin.smither at yale.edu  Sun Feb 10 05:07:53 2002
From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 05:07:53 -0000
Subject: Trelawney and the first prediction WAS Re: How to rescue ...
In-Reply-To: <104.10c88ba9.2996f66b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a44v79+biap@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34976

> In a message dated 2/9/2002 4:43:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> devin.smither at y... writes:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN!  You're saying that Dumbledore called 
the  first prediction accurate because it happened already, right?  
*thinks about that*  No, no, I don't think that quite lines up.  See, 
the second prediction hasn't really happened in its entirety yet when 
Dumbledore talks about it as being a "real" prediction.  The Dark 
Lord has in fact, NOT risen "again, with his servant's aid, greater 
and more terrible than ever he was" when Dumbledore says it was a 
real prediction, yes?  

IamLordCassandra wrote:
 
Hmm, you've got me there. How about this though: Even if Dumbledore 
recognized the trace there would still have to be some evidence in 
part or in full that the prediction was real. In the case of the 
"Dark Lord rising with the aid of his servant' prediction, Wormtail 
did escape and was (or at least Dumbledore might've assumed he was at 
the time) returning to Voldemort. So what I said still goes before, 
except I'm adding that the prediction may have only come true in part 
so far, which is why Dumbledore would call it accurate.
 
This would work better than the 'seeing her go into the trance' 
theory, I think, because we don't know that he saw her go into the 
trance. And it works if he did see her go into the trance. ^^
 
~Cassie-who is noticing how more and more people associate her with 
Cassandra the Prophet ^^~ 

----------------------------

And now Devin is writing:

Yes, intriguing.  All right, let's assume you're right.  Even this 
does not cut off the possibility that Trelawney predicted Harry's 
defeating Voldemort.  How about the prediction being something like: 
"And lo, James Potter and Lily Evans will marry and conceive a son 
who will defeat the greatest dark wizard of the age, and so the last 
descendant of Godric Gryffindor will defeat the last descendant of 
Salazar Slytherin"  There, the first part of the prediction has 
already come true, and it might lead Dumbledore to believe the second 
part of it would come true (in a way, it already has--which might 
lead Voldie to believe he's beaten the prophecy now that he's come 
back from the almost-dead).

In defense of my own point of view, it seems to me that when Harry 
describes Trelawney's state at the time of the prediction, that (her 
state) is what convinces Dumbledore it is probably a true 
prediction.  I imagine her first prediction was heralded by the same 
signs, and even if Dumbledore didn't hear it from Trelawney directly, 
whoever told him probably said, "Yeah, Trelawney came over all funny, 
spoke in this kooky voice, said something about James and Lily having 
a kid that would kill some dark wizard, something about Gryffindor 
and Slytherin..."  And then Dumbledore probably asked for more detail 
and came to believe it was a true prediction.  Maybe true Seers in 
the wizarding world go into trances all the time.  Maybe ones better 
than Trelawney even REMEMBER their predictions after their trance is 
over.

Devin, member of LOLLIPOPS and fervent believer in H/R, H/G (in that 
order)





From puddin210 at hotmail.com  Sun Feb 10 06:15:00 2002
From: puddin210 at hotmail.com (Erin Ridgeway)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 06:15:00 
Subject: more Prank, explaining Sirius
Message-ID: <F127Ibf0YxrbS0uTgch00006aa2@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34977

<snip various enlightening discussions regarding Sirius and the infamous 
Prank>

I completely agree that m'boy Sirius's impulsive, reckless, stupid teenage 
actions were just that, and I do think he was in the wrong in sending Snape 
off to face Remus. However, I don't think that Sirius is cold-blooded enough 
to try to get Snape killed, and I also don't think he realized how far the 
Prank could go. Therefore, I would like to present a Theory.

I don't think it's likely that Sirius casually moseyed up to Snape one day 
and freely handed him the information that he wanted. Snape is a suspicious 
person by nature, I think, and would take anything Sirius handed him with a 
grain of salt. Instead, I theorize that the two of them had an angry blowout 
in which Sirius lost his temper and told Snape exactly how to go about 
getting to Remus. Because Sirius told him what he wanted to know in the heat 
of anger, Snape figures that the information is probably true. After all, 
Snape spent a lot of time watching the Marauders and probably has a pretty 
clear picture of their personalities.

So. Sirius stalks off, and after he cools down he starts thinking. He 
realizes he probably shouldn't have told Snape all that. But then he starts 
to rationalize what he did. He reminds himself that even though Remus is a 
werewolf, he's still Remus. He *knows* what the textbooks say about 
werewolves, but surely Remus wouldn't be like that, even in wolf form. He 
simply cannot wrap his mind around the idea that Remus isn't Remus when he's 
in werewolf form, or that Werewolf!Remus might kill Snape. And after all, he 
and James and Peter had been cavorting around Hogwarts and the surrounding 
area with him (granted, they were in Animagus form, but still...) for more 
than a year, and he'd never tried to hurt them. So surely Werewolf!Remus 
would recognize Snape, scare the heck out of him, and send him packing, tail 
between his legs (har), leaving the Marauders to mischief as usual.

He mentions the Prank to James later that evening and laughs it off, because 
he's convinced himself that there's no way that his soft-spoken, gentle 
buddy Remus could ever *really* be a bloodthirsty monster, and isn't it 
funny that Snape's going to get the pants scared off of him and that'll 
teach him to sneak around. Now James, who doesn't have any reason to 
rationalize because he's not at fault,  realizes that Sirius has done just 
about the stupidest thing he could possibly do, so he bolts off to rescue 
Snape, leaving Sirius to roll his eyes at James's overreacting. He doesn't 
realize what could've really happened until Dumbledore/James/Remus/whomever 
rake him over the coals for it, then he feels the proper remorse. As a 
result of the Prank, though, Snape becomes even more insufferable, so Sirius 
isn't about to apologize. He feels guilty, so subconsciously, he decides 
that it's way easier to reaaaally hate the guy than to tell him he's sorry, 
and anyway, he should've known better than to go if Sirius told him to, duh. 
Sirius talks himself into believing that he wasn't really the one who 
screwed up, Snape was as much at fault as he was, and therefore, he's not 
the one to blame, not entirely.

Sirius's continued references to Snape's sliminess and nosiness, his 
insistance that "he had it coming", and his intense hatred of Snape for 
essentially no good reason seem to me to be a defense mechanism. Way down in 
the dark recesses of his soul, Sirius knows he did something very wrong, but 
he's not about to admit it, because his brain is convinced that Snape 
deserved it, and that nothing would've really happened to him anyway.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is my Theory. Be gentle, I've never put 
forth any sort of theory before.

Erin, who would very much like a SINISTER membership

[I'm afraid I've sent this twice, I'm sorry. My internet connection is 
extremely finicky.]

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





From cindysphynx at home.com  Sun Feb 10 13:58:23 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 13:58:23 -0000
Subject: How To Kill Peter and How The Prank *Really* Happened  (WAS Limits of UC )
In-Reply-To: <a44auj+pvve@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a45u9v+s9pu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34978

Marina wrote (about Peter and Avada Kedavra):

> And while we're on that topic -- what were Lupin and Black planning 
> to cast on Peter in the Shrieking Shack before Harry stopped them?  
> Were they actually going to AK the guy, or are there some 
forgivable 
> killing curses out there?
> 

I doubt Sirius and Lupin would have used AK.  Why would Sirius do 
anything that might earn him . . . a lifetime sentence in Azkaban?  
As for Lupin, as werewolves are not well regarded, he ought to 
realize that he probably wouldn't be shown mercy for using an 
Unforgivable Curse.

My guess would be the old Rope Trick.  Wizards seem quite adept at 
conjuring ropes.  Lupin ties up Pettigrew.  Wormtail ties up Harry.  
Dumbledore ties up Crouch.  Snape ties up Lupin.  So possibly Lupin 
and Sirius were going to "tie up" Pettigrew very, very, very tightly, 
if you know what I mean.  That would be why Hermione turned away; it 
would have been truly gruesome to watch.

Erin wrote (New Sirius Prank Theory):

> I don't think it's likely that Sirius casually moseyed up to Snape 
one day 
> and freely handed him the information that he wanted. Snape is a 
suspicious 
> person by nature, I think, and would take anything Sirius handed 
him with a 
> grain of salt. Instead, I theorize that the two of them had an 
angry blowout 
> in which Sirius lost his temper and told Snape exactly how to go 
about 
> getting to Remus. Because Sirius told him what he wanted to know in 
the heat 
> of anger, Snape figures that the information is probably true. 

I agree that Sirius didn't just walk up and tell Snape how to prod 
the knot.  

I think it might have happened in a kind of Roadrunner/Coyote 
fashion.  Snape is prowling around, pressing his ear to doors, 
climbing around in air ducts, hiding in closets, trying to "catch" 
the Marauders at something.  The Marauders find this *highly* amusing 
and pathetic.  Snape is such a bungler that they always know about 
his latest ham-handed attempt at surveillance.  The Marauders, being 
quite arrogant, enjoy feeding Snape just enough (correct or 
incorrect) information to keep his interest up, and then yukking 
about the little game later.

Then one day, Sirius goes to far.  He knows Snape is snooping (uh, 
Snape has rigged up the equivalent of two tin cans connected by 
string to listen in on the Marauders).  So Sirius stages a 
conversation and reveals the means to get past the Willow.  Snape 
hears this, and thinking that all of his Master Spying has finally 
worked, rushes off after Lupin.  Sirius can hardly contain himself, 
as he finds his Prank ever-so-amusing, so he tells James.  The rest 
is history.

Sirius doesn't feel bad, because Snape was eavesdropping.  Dumbledore 
doesn't expel Sirius, because Snape was eavesdropping.

I like this theory because it makes Sirius' motives less malicious, 
puts more of the blame on Snape, makes Dumbledore's understated 
reaction understandable, and explains why Snape would believe and act 
on the information Sirius provided.

Cindy (not mentioning the fact that she also likes the theory because 
it makes Snape look like a screw-up again)





From daisybluu at hotmail.com  Sun Feb 10 05:26:26 2002
From: daisybluu at hotmail.com (daisybluu)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 05:26:26 -0000
Subject: GoF paperback Edition
Message-ID: <a450a2+ci8k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34979

Hi all, I'm a newbie to the site and I have been doing my 
home work reading up on the archives etc...   My burning 
question at the moment is if anyone knows when the GoF 
paperback US edition is coming out?   I have the rest in 
paperback and would like to continue with the scholastic 
editions.  I almost ordered the *Bloomsbury?*  edition from 
Amazon.co.uk but was confused as to how much US money was 
compared to UK money, and rally bothered that it would not 
match the rest of my set!!!!  I am anxious to find this because I 
would really like to reread GoF before book 5 comes out.  Being 
that it is supposed to be released this summer I would think 
paperback of GoF should be out soon???????

Hope to hear back.....

Jennifer





From filo_roll at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 10 07:50:42 2002
From: filo_roll at yahoo.com (filo_roll)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 07:50:42 -0000
Subject: Snape, yet again!
Message-ID: <a458oi+5h23@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34980

Hello everybody,
I have a little question to ask. Why is it that people here love to 
talk about Snape all the time?  Snape is constantly being argued over 
whether he's brave, evil at heart, his non-existant love life (Snape 
and Lily, I doubt it but maybe) his teaching practices etc etc!! What 
if he dies?  Who will we argue over then? Just a thought.  

filo-roll





From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Sun Feb 10 15:30:55 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 15:30:55 -0000
Subject: GoF paperback Edition
In-Reply-To: <a450a2+ci8k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a463nf+5v97@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34981

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "daisybluu" <daisybluu at h...> wrote:
> I am anxious to find this because I 
> would really like to reread GoF before book 5 comes out.  Being 
> that it is supposed to be released this summer I would think 
> paperback of GoF should be out soon?

It really is quite astonishing that the US PB version of GOF isn't out yet, 
considering that the UK PB version was available last summer.  Meanwhile, if you 
want to re-read it, why not borrow a copy  from a friend or the local library?  

A British pound is equal to about $1.40 -1.45 American, so the price for the UK 
GOF in PB on amazon.co.uk, which is 4.89 pounds, would be about US$7. (lus 
shipping, of course.)




From john at walton.vu  Sun Feb 10 15:59:11 2002
From: john at walton.vu (John Walton)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 15:59:11 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: GoF paperback Edition
In-Reply-To: <a463nf+5v97@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <B88C494F.99F2%john@walton.vu>

No: HPFGUIDX 34982

Jennifer wrote:

>> I am anxious to find this because I would really like to reread GoF before
>> book 5 comes out.  Being that it is supposed to be released this summer I
>> would think paperback of GoF should be out soon?

Well, considering that the paperback of PoA was only released this summer, I
wouldn't hold your breath :) Perhaps the Canadian edition is out in
paperback?

--John

____________________________________________

Ivan Walton, Myezdunarodny Chelovyek iz Taini.

John Walton || john at walton.vu
____________________________________________






From pennylin at swbell.net  Sun Feb 10 17:55:37 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 11:55:37 -0600
Subject: ADMIN: Announcing 3 new Moderators
Message-ID: <3C66B419.6040901@swbell.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34983

Hi everyone --

We're pleased to announce that we've made some positive changes to the 
HP4GU Moderator Team.  We've added 3 new moderators:

Catherine (catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk)
Cindy (cindysphynx at home.com)
Kelley (SKTHOMPSON_1 at msn.com)

I'm sure if you've been around HP4GU for very long, you're familiar with 
these great people.  We're very pleased to add them to our team.  One of 
our existing moderators, Jim Flanagan, has elected to step back from the 
moderator role for the moment, taking the title Moderator Emeritus.  So, 
we now have a team of 7 people, 3 in the UK and 4 in the US.

Magically yours,

The HP4GU Magical Moderator Team
	Amy Z (US -- EST)
	Catherine C. (UK)
	Cindy C. (US -- EST)
	John Walton (UK)
	Kelley Thompson (US -- CST)
	Neil Ward (UK)
	Penny Linsenmayer (US -- CST)
	













From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Sun Feb 10 20:26:47 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 20:26:47 -0000
Subject: more Prank, explaining Sirius
In-Reply-To: <F127Ibf0YxrbS0uTgch00006aa2@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a46l27+9i5j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34984

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Erin Ridgeway" <puddin210 at h...> wrote:
<snip theory of Sirius' prank on Snape>

So. Sirius stalks off, and after he cools down he starts thinking. He 
realizes he probably shouldn't have told Snape all that. But then he 
starts to rationalize what he did. He reminds himself that even though 
Remus is a werewolf, he's still Remus. He *knows* what the textbooks 
say about werewolves, but surely Remus wouldn't be like that, even in 
wolf form. He simply cannot wrap his mind around the idea that Remus 
isn't Remus when he's in werewolf form, or that Werewolf!Remus might 
kill Snape. And after all, he and James and Peter had been cavorting 
around Hogwarts and the surrounding area with him (granted, they were 
in Animagus form, but still...) for more than a year, and he'd never 
tried to hurt them.

<snip: rest of theory>
And there, ladies and gentlemen, is my Theory. Be gentle, I've never 
put forth any sort of theory before.

Erin, who would very much like a SINISTER membership
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Good theory, almost, but I think I found a major flaw in it (I've 
included the paragraph were it's most clear, but affects the whole 
theory).

You base Sirius reasoning in that he feals that Lupin won't attack 
someone while in wolf-form because he's still has Lupin's mind. This, 
unfortunately, is shown by Canon to be compleatly false. Sirius, James 
and Peter were forced to learn how to become animagus precisely 
because, in that form, either could escape from the wolf (Wormtail), or 
submit it (Prongs and Padfoot). It is a major fact in Canon that, until 
the recent discovery of the wolfbane potion, werewolves were compleatly 
wild, and that their human alter-egos could not control them in any 
maner whatsoever. I don't see how Sirius, who's main job when 
transforming into padfoot was to submit Lupin's wolf-form, could have 
for one moment (even when trying to justify himself), forget that.


Hope that helps

Grey Wolf





From maria_mcnally_2003 at yahoo.co.uk  Sun Feb 10 18:28:22 2002
From: maria_mcnally_2003 at yahoo.co.uk (maria_mcnally_2003)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 18:28:22 -0000
Subject: Snape's Duty in the GoF
Message-ID: <a46e46+8ocr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34985

After finishing the fourth book yesterday, I was a bit curious what 
was Snape's duty since he replied to Dumbledore that he knew what he 
was going to do.  Is Snape going to be a spy or will he be killed by 
LV.  During the part when LV talks about who betrayed him, he 
mentions Barty Crouch (who is innocent) and two others that will be 
killed..one of course if Karkarof (sorry if I spelled this wrong) and 
would the other be Snape?

As a result from Mr. Crouch being killed, will Percy take upon his 
duty?  Also, what are other purposes for mandrakes.  In the previous 
book in CoS, they were used to bring ppl to life (such as Filch's cat 
and Hermoine).  Will mandrakes ever serve a purpose to bring someone 
back from the dead?  

Maria 





From theennead at attbi.com  Sun Feb 10 20:55:10 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 20:55:10 -0000
Subject: Predatory Karkaroff as Stock/Type
In-Reply-To: <a3mbvu+rl87@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a46mne+jk0g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34986

Judy wrote:

> By the way, I re-read the description of Karkaroff, 
> and he is described if ways that could be thought of as 
> stereotypically gay -- "fruity" voice, weak chin hidden by a
> goatee, etc. 

I saw Karkaroff as falling very firmly within a (now, thankfully, 
rather archaic) British literary tradition.  He's a variation on a 
stock that was more popular in the first half of the twentieth 
century, the Oily and Disreputable Eastern European, given a slightly 
(but only *very* slightly) more modern edge by all of the Cold 
War/Biased Olympics Official stuff.  

You see a lot of these guys in Golden Age Whodunnits.  Agatha 
Christie was partial to the type for a while: in her hands, he was 
often a Jew (up until around 1939, that is, when a dinner 
conversation with a member of a Foreign Political Party Which Must 
Not Be Named shocked Christie so badly that she apruptly abandoned 
much of her earlier anti-semitism).

Anyway, in the tradition of this Type, the effeminacy isn't really a 
signifier of homosexuality at all.  It's a signifier of unwholesome 
and *predatory* sexuality.  This stock character is often a hostile 
seducer ("ruiner") of well-born young women; sometimes he's a con man 
with fraudulent aristocratic credentials, hoping to marry wealth.  
I've also seen him written as a bigamist.

So, um...yeah.  My suspicions about Karkaroff and Krum <big smile and 
appreciative wave to Tabouli for K.I.S.S.T.H.I.S.D.U.C.K.> probably
*were* largely influenced by his effeminacy, but I think that I was 
reading that far more as a sign of "predatory" than of "gay."


While we're on this topic, I'd just like to add that JKR really knows 
her classic detective fiction tropes.  The Karkaroff character in 
1930s Whodunnits is the Designated Red Herring -- the one that even 
the readers are meant to recognize as such.  He's the character that 
nobody trusts, but while he usually *does* turn out to be No Good in 
one way or another -- he's a jewel thief, or a forger, or a bigamist, 
or an espionage agent, or a gold-digger, or on the lam for crimes 
committed elsewhere -- he's never the *real* culprit.  He is not the 
murderer.  He usually disappears half-way through Act Three; at the 
denoument, the detective then reveals his secret and explains that he 
fled out of fear of exposure, or fear of repercussions deriving from 
his exposure.

Sound a little familiar?

I don't think that I've *ever* seen this stock character's
probable eventual fate painted quite so darkly as poor Karkaroff's, 
though.  In mysteries, he just slips back into the dubious 
shadowlands whence he sprung -- presumably to resurface at someone 
else's house party a few months later...


Judy again:

> Ugh.  I found the thought of Karkaroff being attracted to Krum 
> pretty nauseating; the thought of him wanting Snape is even worse.  

Aw.  Poor Igor.  What's so nauseating about him?  At least his 
standards of personal hygiene seem up to par.  

You know, I'm beginning to agree with Cindy?  Karkaroff gets 
nothing around here but disdain.

So that does it.  I'm inviting Igor out for a few drinks and to pick 
up his S.Y.C.O.P.H.A.N.T.S. membership packet.  We'll go far over our 
limits, and sing old songs loudly and off-key, and then get all weepy 
and bathetic and sentimental before staggering home at dawn.  

I'd invite Cindy to join us, but...  Well, I fear that the weepy 
bathetic stuff might prove too much for her.  I wouldn't want her to 
snap and...well, you know.  Kill us.


-- Elkins, who can become weirdly obsessive about Agatha Christie and 
who has the Christies on her bookshelf filed in order of original 
publication date.





From Chelsea2162 at aol.com  Sun Feb 10 21:03:44 2002
From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 16:03:44 EST
Subject: Mandrakes ( was Snape's Duty in the GoF)
Message-ID: <134.928d6d2.29983a30@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34987

Maria writes:
 < Also, what are other purposes for mandrakes.  In the previous 
 <book in CoS, they were used to bring ppl to life (such as Filch's cat 
 <and Hermoine).  Will mandrakes ever serve a purpose to bring someone 
 <back from the dead?  

When I read what Maria wrote, I started wondering the same thing. Could 
mandrakes possible bring someone back to life? However, I've heard many 
people saying that necromancy (bringing the dead back to life) is NOT 
something to mess with. But, if someone was killed, and a minute or so later 
they were administered the mandrake potion, would it still be considered bad? 
This also raises other questions. Could mandrakes have helped say, Lily and 
James? If Sirius and Hagrid appeared quickly on the scene, would they have 
able to bring Lily and James back to life? Somehow though, this just doesn't 
seem likely. Anyone else have any ideas on the power of the mandrakes?

*Chelsea*




From hollydaze at btinternet.com  Sun Feb 10 21:33:19 2002
From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 21:33:19 -0000
Subject: Weasley car, Centaurs and Aragog.
Message-ID: <013401c1b27a$8f81fea0$6b1e073e@j0dhe>

No: HPFGUIDX 34988

Jk Rowling has said in online interviews (to many to quote really) that we will see the Weasley car again and I was just wondering what people think about this and how we will see it. the same applies with the Three centaurs (Ronan, Bane and Firenze) and Aragog. How do you think they will come into the future story and when?
HOLLYDAZE!!!





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




From muridae at muridae.co.uk  Sun Feb 10 21:37:54 2002
From: muridae at muridae.co.uk (Muridae)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 21:37:54 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mandrakes ( was Snape's Duty in the GoF)
In-Reply-To: <134.928d6d2.29983a30@aol.com>
References: <134.928d6d2.29983a30@aol.com>
Message-ID: <R7ve2VByguZ8EwgP@muridae.co.uk>

No: HPFGUIDX 34989

Chelsea wrote:

>Maria writes:
> < Also, what are other purposes for mandrakes.  In the previous
> <book in CoS, they were used to bring ppl to life (such as Filch's cat
> <and Hermoine).  Will mandrakes ever serve a purpose to bring someone
> <back from the dead?
>
>When I read what Maria wrote, I started wondering the same thing. Could
>mandrakes possible bring someone back to life? However, I've heard many
>people saying that necromancy (bringing the dead back to life) is NOT
>something to mess with. But, if someone was killed, and a minute or so later
>they were administered the mandrake potion, would it still be considered bad?
>This also raises other questions. Could mandrakes have helped say, Lily and
>James? If Sirius and Hagrid appeared quickly on the scene, would they have
>able to bring Lily and James back to life? Somehow though, this just doesn't
>seem likely. Anyone else have any ideas on the power of the mandrakes?

Well, first of all, the Mandrake potion *didn't* bring anyone back to 
life. Moaning Myrtle was killed by the Basilisk, back when the Chamber 
of Secrets was opened by Tom Riddle, because she made direct eye contact 
with it. But the current students and Mrs Norris only saw its 
reflection, or saw it through something, so they didn't die but were 
turned to stone instead.

So the Mandrake potion was used for a transformation spell of some kind, 
to turn them back from stone to their normal form. I doubt it could work 
on someone who was actually dead, since it'd presumably just turn their 
stone corpse back into dead (but de-stoned) wizard.

In any case, it's clearly hard to come by or Hogwarts wouldn't have had 
to wait for its own current crop of Mandrakes to mature enough to be 
harvested before mixing up a de-stoning potion; they'd just have sent 
someone out to Hogsmeade or to Diagon Alley to buy some immediately and 
the kids wouldn't have missed several months worth of school. So even if 
it was capable of reviving the newly dead, it's unlikely anyone would 
have any to hand at the right moment.

It *is* tempting to speculate on what other types of transformation 
potion it could be an ingredient for though, since it's obviously very 
powerful.

-- 
Muridae



From theennead at attbi.com  Sun Feb 10 22:39:35 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 22:39:35 -0000
Subject: Weak vs. Unwilling, Fidelius, Pettigrew's Poor Strategy
In-Reply-To: <Springmail.105.1012277226.0.61543900@www.springmail.com>
Message-ID: <a46sr7+64t9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34990

Porphyria, in response to my "Where are the Weaklings and Patsies?"
query, wrote:

> That's a good question, but I guess my reply would be, where do you
> draw the line between weak and unwilling? 

That's an excellent question!  There's certainly a continuum there, 
even in the real world.  And as someone (Judy, I think it was?) 
pointed out some time ago, the entire question of personal volition 
is even more complicated for wizards in the Potterverse, where there 
are things like Imperius and Fidelius and the mental side-effects of 
Transfiguration to contend with.

And then there are also...well, genre conventions.  In real life, for 
example, revealing secrets under torture is essentially a blameless 
act.  Torture subverts personal volition -- that's its purpose -- so 
people can't really be held responsible for their behavior under its 
influence.  Even members of certain branches of the military, who 
receive special training in resisting interrogation, are not really 
expected to hold up to it very well at all; those who do show a 
native facility with resistance (and yes, there are such people) are 
generally not considered so much "heroic" as they are seen to be 
possessed of an unusual and somewhat freakish talent.

In most types of genre fiction, on the other hand, virtuous people 
resist interrogation.  They just do.  It's a convention of the genre: 
Good Guys Don't Crack. So the question of personal volition is 
complicated even further in the world of HP by the extent to which 
the world might operate under the laws of genre convention, rather 
than those of real life.

This is an issue that touches directly on my question of a week or so 
ago, as to why Pettigrew might have chosen to go for that muggle-
blasting-fake-my-own-death-and-frame-Sirius stunt, rather than simply 
claiming that the DEs had somehow figured out that he was the 
Potters' Secret Keeper and then wrested the secret from him by means 
of magical or physical coercion.

I argued that the latter plan seemed far more sensible to me, and it 
would have had the added bonus of placing him under Dumbldeore's 
protection in case the other DEs came after him for betraying 
Voldemort to his doom.

In response, Marina wrote:

> Did he know that Volemort was down for the count? At the time,
> everyone pretty much thought that V was invincible, so Peter 
> probably thought that the disappearance was just a temporary 
> setback, and that V would be back any moment, kicking more butt. 
> In which case worming his was back into the good guys' graces 
> would've been a really bad move.

But...but...but...But he was a spy in the first place, wasn't he?  He 
was a mole: he'd been passing on information from the inside.  So 
surely 'in the good guys' graces' would be precisely where Voldemort 
would expect for him to be?  I mean, that was a very important part 
of his *job.*

Really, worming his way back into the good guys' graces would seem 
like a no-lose strategy to me.  If Voldie never returns, he gets pity 
and protection from the good guys, and if Voldie *does* 
return...well, he's just been carrying on doing his job like a loyal 
little DE.  Win-win.

But (and this is the big "but") it's a strategy that only makes sense 
if one makes certain assumptions about how the Fidelius Charm works --
and specifically, about what is meant by the phrase "chooses to 
divulge it."  (It all depends on what "chooses" means.)  What degree 
of volition is required for the SK's information to count as "freely" 
divulged?  Could it be divulged under torture?  Under Imperius?  
Under Veritaserum?  How does the Fidelius Charm _itself_ answer the 
question of at what point personal volition is negated by coercion?

This is a question that puzzles me because on the one hand, the only 
reason I can imagine for Pettigrew not utilizing the "they found out 
and came after me, and I just couldn't keep it from them" strategy 
would be that the information hidden by the Fidelius Charm *can't* be 
wrested from the secret keeper by force.  If this is the case, then 
the fact that the others consider Pettigrew to be both magically weak 
and physically delicate is irrelevant: he still wouldn't be able to 
get away with claiming magical or physical coercion as a defense.

But on the other hand, if this is the case then I confess myself
puzzled by the decision to try to bluff the enemy by switching secret-
keepers in the first place.  "They'd never suspect we'd use a 
weakling like Peter" would seem to imply that the Fidelius Charm is 
*no* proof against extreme forms of coercion, that the Secret Keeper 
can indeed be forced to reveal his secret through torture or Imperio 
or Veritaserum or whatever forms of magical mind-reading might exist.
In which case I'm left once more wondering why Pettigrew didn't 
choose the far wiser strategy of claiming that this was what had 
happened to him.


Cindy wrote:

> I can only think of two reasons why Peter wouldn't try this. First, 
> it could simply be that he is dedicated to the Dark Lord, as Sirius 
> suggests in the Shrieking Shack. Peter was just biding his time, 
> waiting for a chance to help his master, so being a rat for 12
> years would probably provide a better vantage point than Azkaban. 

But if the Fidelius Charm *can* be broken by torture or Imperius or 
Veritaserum or magical mind-reading or whatever else, then why on 
earth would he wind up in Azkaban?  On what charges?  Being 
Overpowered By a Bunch of DE Thugs?  He could share a cell with the 
Longbottoms, perhaps?

Nope.  That explanation just doesn't cut it.  If Pettigrew had 
claimed coercion, then he would have been perceived as a victim 
(always a role  enjoys), not as a criminal, and he would have wound 
up far *better* positioned to wait for a chance to help his master 
than he did as a pet rat.

Once again, I'm left with the conclusion that the only reason that 
Pettigrew could possibly have chosen the strategy he did was that he 
knew full well that Sirius Black's "nasty temper" -- or maniacally 
homicidal tendencies, depending on how you look at it -- would have 
caused him to be blasted to smithereens on the street in *spite* of 
the fact that this would have been a monstrously unjust and indeed 
psychopathic response on Sirius' part. 

So *there.*

<Elkins nods with supreme satisfaction, takes a long drag on her 
cigarette, and then blinks, frowning>

Although actually...

<long sigh>

Yeah, okay.  Okay, Cindy.  Fine.  Never mind.  I just realized.  
Sirius really *would* have been perfectly justified in blasting 
Pettigrew into a faint red mist had he tried out my strategy after 
the Potters' deaths, and you want to know why?

No, not because Pettigrew's a coward and a weakling, nor because 
Sirius would have thought that he *ought* to have been able to stand 
up to any degree of coercion, nor because the Secret Keeper's resolve 
can't be broken by magic or force.  None of that.

No.  No, Sirius would have been utterly justified in blasting 
Pettigrew on the street for the simple reason that Pettigrew is a 
*terrible* liar.

And no, I don't mean 'terrible' as in 'incorrigible.'  I 
mean 'terrible' as in 'he's just no damn good at it.'

He never would have been able to pull off my strategy successfully 
because the man can't lie his way out of a paper bag.  It would have 
been pathetically obvious that he was making it all up, and Sirius 
would have blasted him.

<exasperated sigh>

You know, I really do have very little patience with pathological 
liars who aren't even any *good* at it?  God, I hate that.  That just 
annoys the hell out of me.  What's wrong with Peter, anyway?

It's just depressing.  I really do find myself wanting to believe 
that Pettigrew was once a competent liar, and that maybe it was just 
all those years spent in rat form that dulled his edge or something, 
because otherwise I really do find myself wondering about Sirius and 
the Potters.  They went an entire year without realizing who the spy 
really was?  When it was *Pettigrew?*  The worst liar in the
entire Potterverse?  The man whose tells are visible from a hundred 
yards away?

I mean, it just kind of boggles the mind, doesn't it?


Back to Porphyria:

> Peter sure seems to me to act more on fear than conviction; he 
> seems really disgusted with what he's doing and living in constant 
> fear that he'll be axed once his usefulness is over. Do we know the 
> dark mark on his arm indicates that he's truly a *willing* DE, or 
> is that just another thing he got browbeaten into?

"But they would have killed me if I hadn't agreed to enter into a 
binding magical compact with Voldemort and swear my undying loyalty 
to him!  I was browbeaten into it!  I didn't really *want* to!" 

No.  To my mind, that's willing.  Weak, yes, to be sure, and if the 
browbeating was severe then rather sad as well, but come on!  There 
are lines beyond which you just cannot venture while still claiming 
to be "unwilling."  Once you're bearing the magically-binding token 
of your oath of eternal loyalty to the age's Great Dark Wizard, then 
I'd say that Checkpoint Charlie isn't even in your range of *sight*
anymore: you've already gone *miles* past that line.  

Then, much of this depends on how one interprets the status of the 
DEs and the nature of their compact with Voldemort.  I don't really 
believe that there *can* be truly "unwilling" Death Eaters.  

For one thing, the DEs would seem to be Voldemort's elite followers, 
not fellow-travellers.  Whenever people talk about the dark days of 
V's original reign, the impression given is that he had a *lot* of 
supporters -- people didn't know who to trust, they were fearful of 
talking to strange wizards, *anyone* could turn out to be the enemy, 
and so forth.  But there are only thirty some-odd DEs in the 
graveyard scene.  Even allowing for attrition due to imprisonment and
death (not to mention cowardice and treachery), that number is just 
too small to represent all of Voldemort's original supporters.  I'd 
say the DEs are an elite group.

Also, the Dark Mark would seem to represent a rather serious 
relationship: it's not exactly like bearing the Nike Swoosh on your 
ankle.  It's not just a tattoo; it's a form of magical binding.  It 
is intrinsically connected to Voldemort's state of being (it grows 
more visible as he approaches recorporation).  It's linked to all of 
the other Dark Marks (Voldemort can use Peter's to activate all of
them, and Snape claims that part of its original function was to 
serve as a means of identification and recognition between Death 
Eaters).  Through it, Voldemort can summon his DEs to his side over 
great distance without giving them any explicit directions to his 
location.  And when he's accusing them of infidelity in the 
graveyard, he reminds them that they once "swore eternal loyalty" to 
him.  

That all sounds like serious ritual magic to me.  While canon never 
actually makes it explicit, I think it's pretty strongly implied that 
the Dark Mark represents a *compact,* one that is both personal and 
binding, and one that really could *not* be entered 
into "involuntarily."


> Also, Avery seems like a coward -- maybe he's really evil but 
> just hyper. 

Oh, Porphyria!  Surely you meant to say "he's *not* really evil, but 
just hyper," didn't you?  I certainly hope so, because otherwise we 
may need to have words.  You *know* how I feel about Avery.  ;-)


> So far it seems like only Lucius and Mrs. Lestrange stick with 
> Voldemort because they feel they have a stake in what he's doing.

And I'm not altogether certain about Lucius.  Yes, I'm sure that he 
and Voldemort do share certain agenda.  But still.  Lucius doesn't 
seem at all happy to see the Dark Lord back in action, and IMO 
there's more to that then simple fear of punishment.  I definitely 
get the impression that there's a *reason* so few of the DEs went out 
looking for Voldemort the way the Lestranges did.  I think that by
the end there, he'd grown so completely mad and erratic and bwah-hah-
hah villainish that all but the very nuttiest of his followers 
(Crouch, Lestranges...) were more than a little relieved to see him 
go.


> Does anyone but me wonder if Rita Skeeter will wind up delivering 
> information to Voldemort -- wittingly or unwittingly? She's be a 
> good candidate for some Imperius duty.

You think she really *needs* Imperius?  Rita's on the make.  I would 
think that she'd be so easy to manipulate by the usual means that 
there'd be no real need for mind-control.


> Did JKR ever say something in an interview about trying to paint 
> some characters in shades of gray, or depict degress of evil, or 
> words to that effect? 

Not that I recall.  There was an interview in which she responded to 
the suggestion that GoF might have been a tad too dark for her 
audience with the response that she saw no point in writing about 
Evil unless one were willing to portray it as truly *bad,* which is 
where that "JKR has said that she wants to show Evil as bad" line 
that gets cited so often around here comes from.  But I'm damned if I 
can remember the source -- probably someone else will know.

I do remember that in its original context, it came across as a 
considerably less trite statement than it usually does when cited 
here.  ("No!  You mean to say that evil is...is *bad?*  But surely 
you can't really *mean* that!  Say it isn't SO!")

<rolls eyes>

"Evil is bad."

<snort>

Sheesh.


-- Elkins




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Sun Feb 10 22:40:50 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 22:40:50 -0000
Subject: A Lord I Can't Name (filk)
Message-ID: <a46sti+ees8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34991

A Lord I Can't Name

(To the tune of A Horse With No Name)

Dedicated to Pippin

Hear the original at

http://www.foxlink.net/~bobnbren/1970s.html

On the first part of the journey
I was looking for signs of life
It was touch and go and hide and seek 
Over hill and dale and peak
The first thing I met was a rat who'd heard buzz
`Bout a place of grievous loss 
All denizens dead and the ground was rank 
I knew it must be my boss

I'm searching through the Balkans for a Lord I can't name
It's my fate to help launch his reign
Everyone's deserted He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named
So there ain't no one to deal fear, death and pain.
La, la, la, la, la




After two days in the Balkan fen
I stopped at an inn for rest
But Bertha Jorkins spotted me
She had always been a major pest
Her a story I told of a forest that held
The Lord they sent me to arrest

"You see I'm searching through the Balkans for a Lord without form
Protecting generations who have yet to born
I've pretended to be dead but you need not mourn
To bring him back to justice I am eagerly sworn.
La, la, la, la, la


"

The Dark Lord locked her in his custody
And fiddled with her memory
There were screams and shrieks and pleas and tears
There were threats and laughs and sneers
When Bertha told us all the things we needed to know
He her body and mind destroyed
The Dark Lord was preparing for his latest tableaux
In a dreadful shape deployed.

You see I'm now enslaved forever to a Lord I can't stand
I've become the servant to his ev'ry command
Were I to oppose him I should surely get canned
Can't think of what else to do now, off-hand
La, la, la, la, la




  - CMC

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





From mellienel2 at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 10 22:43:23 2002
From: mellienel2 at yahoo.com (mellienel2)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 22:43:23 -0000
Subject: GoF paperback Edition
In-Reply-To: <a450a2+ci8k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a46t2b+h1sb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34992

Hey Jennifer and all --

GoF will be on paperback in the states on Harry's next birthday, July 
31. Check it out:

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2002_02_03_archive.html#9389224

:-)

M.



--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "daisybluu" <daisybluu at h...> wrote:
> Hi all, I'm a newbie to the site and I have been doing my 
> home work reading up on the archives etc...   My burning 
> question at the moment is if anyone knows when the GoF 
> paperback US edition is coming out?   I have the rest in 
> paperback and would like to continue with the scholastic 
> editions.  I almost ordered the *Bloomsbury?*  edition from 
> Amazon.co.uk but was confused as to how much US money was 
> compared to UK money, and rally bothered that it would not 
> match the rest of my set!!!!  I am anxious to find this because I 
> would really like to reread GoF before book 5 comes out.  Being 
> that it is supposed to be released this summer I would think 
> paperback of GoF should be out soon???????
> 
> Hope to hear back.....
> 
> Jennifer




From david_p at istop.com  Sun Feb 10 23:30:17 2002
From: david_p at istop.com (david_p2002ca)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 23:30:17 -0000
Subject: GoF paperback Edition
In-Reply-To: <B88C494F.99F2%john@walton.vu>
Message-ID: <a46vq9+5ev7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34993

John Walton asked:

> Perhaps the Canadian edition is out in paperback?

Not yet.  And keep in mind the Canadian text is the UK text; thus it 
is different from the US version.

I don't think North America will see GoF in paperback before the 
release of OotP, based on my past experiences in waiting for 
paperbacks here.

David P.





From mellienel2 at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 10 23:45:59 2002
From: mellienel2 at yahoo.com (mellienel2)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 23:45:59 -0000
Subject: GoF paperback Edition
In-Reply-To: <a46vq9+5ev7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a470nn+gqvh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34994


> 
> I don't think North America will see GoF in paperback before the 
> release of OotP, based on my past experiences in waiting for 
> paperbacks here.

hey david, it's coming out in the U.S. on July 31 (check www.the-
leaky-cauldron.org for updates). Whether that's before or after OotP 
is anyone's guess, but I'd imagine the two aren't going to coincide, 
just to give each other breathing room. But the paperback sched. 
really hasn't gone according to new book release, since it's been so 
skewed after GoF's hardcover release; we really can't go by that.

later,
m





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Sun Feb 10 23:49:43 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 23:49:43 -0000
Subject: Weak vs. Unwilling, Fidelius, Pettigrew's Poor Strategy
In-Reply-To: <a46sr7+64t9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a470un+59jj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34995

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" <theennead at a...> wrote:
<snipping musings on why Peter didn't throw himself on Sirius' mercy 
after the Potters were killed>

> Once again, I'm left with the conclusion that the only reason that 
> Pettigrew could possibly have chosen the strategy he did was that 
he 
> knew full well that Sirius Black's "nasty temper" -- or maniacally 
> homicidal tendencies, depending on how you look at it -- would 
have 
> caused him to be blasted to smithereens on the street in *spite* 
of 
> the fact that this would have been a monstrously unjust and indeed 
> psychopathic response on Sirius' part. 

I don't think we can dismiss out of hand the possibility that Peter 
just didn't think of it, just as Sirius, freshly out of Azkaban, 
didn't think of owling Dumbledore to tell him what really happened.  
People functioning under extreme stress don't always come up with 
the best strategy.  For a milder example, look at Harry and Ron in 
CoS, stealing the Ford Anglia to get to the school after they miss 
the Hogwarts express.  It's a stupid plan, and when they explain to 
McGonnagal why they did it, her immediate response is "why didn't 
you just owl the school and tell us what happened?"  And Harry and 
Ron can only stand there like a couple of dopes saying "uhm, we 
didn't think of it."  So it's possible that if someone said to 
Pete, "hey, why didn't you just tell Sirius you were tortured into 
revealing the Potters' location," it's possible he would've slapped 
himself on the forehead and exclaimed, "D'oh!  Can't believe I 
didn't think of that!  Boy, is my face red!"

Also, even if Peter did think that Sirius would summarily blast him 
no matter what excuse he gave, that doesn't mean Peter was right.  
The combination of extreme terror he must've been feeling and 
knowledge of his own guilt may have made it impossible for him to 
believe that any of James' friends might show him mercy or 
compassion.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From margdean at erols.com  Mon Feb 11 00:57:48 2002
From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 19:57:48 -0500
Subject: JKR on Evil
References: <a46sr7+64t9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C67170C.7C11EF7F@erols.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34996

ssk7882 wrote:
> 
> Porphyria, in response to my "Where are the Weaklings and Patsies?"
> query, wrote:

> > Did JKR ever say something in an interview about trying to paint
> > some characters in shades of gray, or depict degress of evil, or
> > words to that effect?
> 
> Not that I recall.  There was an interview in which she responded to
> the suggestion that GoF might have been a tad too dark for her
> audience with the response that she saw no point in writing about
> Evil unless one were willing to portray it as truly *bad,* which is
> where that "JKR has said that she wants to show Evil as bad" line
> that gets cited so often around here comes from.  But I'm damned if I
> can remember the source -- probably someone else will know.
> 
> I do remember that in its original context, it came across as a
> considerably less trite statement than it usually does when cited
> here.  ("No!  You mean to say that evil is...is *bad?*  But surely
> you can't really *mean* that!  Say it isn't SO!")

I remember the line as something more on the order of, "If you're
going to write about evil, you really do have an obligation to
show what that means."  I take that to mean, "Yes, there IS such
a thing as evil, folks, it isn't just all some kind of a mistake,
or that these guys had unhappy childhoods or are just Terribly
Misunderstood.  Evil does exist, and this is what it looks like."


--Margaret Dean
  <margdean at erols.com>



From iluvnaac at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 10 21:35:07 2002
From: iluvnaac at yahoo.com (iluvnaac)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 13:35:07 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape, yet again!
References: <a458oi+5h23@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <02cd01c1b27a$cfb3b5e0$80a1fea9@pacbell.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 34997

 I think the reason Snape is so fascinating, at least for me, is that I
believe he is not truly evil, just ornery lol!. I also believe he can be
redeemed in a sense and feel that there is much more to his story that we'll
find in books 5, 6 and 7.
BTW My name is Paula and I'm a newby to the list. I live in California and
am a 35 yr old, married, mother of 4. (I hate intros :o)

----- Original Message -----
"filo_roll wrote:
 Why is it that people here love to
talk about Snape all the time?


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com





From mdawson.design at dial.pipex.com  Sun Feb 10 21:59:23 2002
From: mdawson.design at dial.pipex.com (Marjorie Dawson)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 21:59:23 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape, yet again!
References: <a458oi+5h23@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002b01c1b27e$33e42e20$9b9abc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 34998

Filo-Roll dear heart, if you don't want to spoil ALL our fun, indulge us a little.  This passion for Snape may, as you say, come to a sad and precipitous end, but, in the mean time bear with us and delete any messages containing his name in the Subject line if they cause you offence.  Personally, I think he is wickedly good fun and well worth discussing at length (guess that puts me on your kill-list huh?)

Felicia


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





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 11 00:13:20 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 00:13:20 -0000
Subject: Mandrakes and resurrection Was (Snape's Duty in the GoF)
In-Reply-To: <a46e46+8ocr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a472b0+pgvd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 34999

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "maria_mcnally_2003" 
<maria_mcnally_2003 at y...> wrote:
> what are other purposes for mandrakes.  In the previous book in 
> CoS, they were used to bring ppl to life (such as Filch's cat 
> and Hermoine).  Will mandrakes ever serve a purpose to bring 
> someone back from the dead?  

According to the Harry Potter Lexicon, "Mandrake (Mandragora) 
The Mandrake root is a powerful restorative. It forms an essential 
part of most antidotes, including one for Petrification (CS6) The 
Mandrake Restorative Draft returns people who are transfigured or 
cursed to their original state"

JKR has said in several interviews that the dead cannot be 
resurrected. Dumbledore repeated this in Gpblet of Fire Chapter 36. 
Dark Magic can work a semblance of life like Voldemort at the cost of 
a soul. I'm sure Harry would NOT like zombies back.

Also according to Professor Moody (Crouch) in Goblet of Fire said 
there was no countercurse to Avada Kedavra and that there was only 
one known case of it being blocked (Harry). Although Crouch is not 
the most trustworthy source, there is no evidence that he lied here. 

I see Avada Kedavra as a sort of shock, instantly stopping the heart 
and brain and casting out the soul. With no soul to restore, the 
victim is dead, although ghosts can come back.

As for injured, such as the Longbottoms or Lockheart, I think it 
should be possible to restore them to a previous state. This may be 
via mandrake or possible some rare potion, making a quest necessary. 
Possibly a variation of time travel or the elizer of life?
Uncmark





From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Feb 11 01:29:04 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 01:29:04 -0000
Subject: killing curses/ Draco's marks/ Snape/ Prank Redux/ Mandrakes/ Kudos for filk
Message-ID: <a476p0+jq6l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35000

A post I sent last night has not yet appeared on list, so I will 
include some of its content in this post.

Marina Rusalka wrote:

> what were Lupin and Black planning to cast on Peter in the
> Shrieking Shack before Harry stopped them? Were they actually 
> going to AK the guy, or are there some forgivable killing curses
> out there?

Lots of 'em, like the one that blew up the street and killed 14 
Muggles. Remus and Sirius might have been going to ACCIO! Peter's 
heart right out of his chest, or conjure up ropes to bind him, not 
just around the hands, but around the throat, tightly. Oh, Cindy 
Sphynx already mentioned the latter.

FR mdawson_design wrote:

> Draco has been getting poor marks from all his teachers - refer to 
CoS - Draco & his father in Nocturne Alley & their conversation about 
Draco's poor marks (and specifically about muggle born Hermione 

In that conversation, Lucius said: "I would have thought you'd be 
ashamed that a girl of no wizard family beat you in every exam." That 
does not PROVE that Draco had poor marks, only that his marks weren't 
as good as Hermione's. If they were BETTER than anyone but Hermione, 
then they were good marks that a decent parent would praise. I want 
to believe that Draco is an intelligent child, altho' he (alas) does 
not act intelligent while feuding with Harry. 

DaeyMoon wrote:

> I mean anyone - even Harry - would be overwhelmed by the fame and 
> fortune that fall effortlessly into his life....it never seems to
> end. 

I think the Dursleys are enough to keep Harry from getting a swelled 
head, and don't need Snape's assistance.

Liz Sager wrote:

> and Lupin gets the eternal guilt of having killed someone in 
> werewolf form.

I've always kind of assumed that MoM law specifies execution for any 
werewolf who kills a wizard while in wolf form. I wonder if Remus 
would prefer to be executed rather than live with eternal guilt?

> Can anyone else see Sirius telling Lupin, "But he deserved it,
> Moony, he really did!" I can only imagine that Lupin losing his 
> temper would ensue. 

Oh, yes, Remus would snap back: "And did *I* deserve it, Sirius? 
You felt no hesitation about setting me up to be executed by the 
Ministry. I think I would be safer being your enemy than your 
friend." I can imagine those blue eyes (I say they're blue, canon 
doesn't specify) turning to icicles as the voice became utterly, 
utterly calm, controlled, and cold, and Sirius realised that he had 
never seen Moony so angry before... I imagine the Remus acts Even 
More Rationally than normal when he loses his temper.

> *imagines IrrationalTeenager!Sirius saying that* I can see that. 
> With the wide innocent eyes and charming good looks...but surely 
> Dumbledore would have seen through it?

I suppose Dumbledore saw through it and didn't call him on it. No 
harm, no foul. James had reacted heroically and shouldn't be punished 
by losing his friend. Dumbledore admires loyalty.

Erin Puddin wrote:

> Instead, I theorize that the two of them had an angry blowout in 
> which Sirius lost his temper and told Snape exactly how to go about
> getting to Remus. (snip) Sirius's continued references to Snape's 
> sliminess and nosiness, his insistance that "he had it coming", and
> his intense hatred of Snape for  essentially no good reason seem
> to me to be a defense mechanism.

I believe in the angry blowout, but I also believe that Sirius 
already HATED Snape before that, and he had SOME kind of reason. I 
can only fantasize what the reason was, maybe something *stinging* 
that young Severus said to young Sirius ... maybe a taunt about his 
family background ... maybe, when young Sirus already hated young 
Severus, as well as finding him physically disgusting, he secretly 
took a notion that Severus was trying to get into his pants and THAT 
was the real reasosn he kept spying on the Marauders ... and the 
Marauders are my age, in those days people had so much internalised 
homophobia that it accounted for a LOT of irrational behaviour. 

Maria McNally wrote:

> Will mandrakes ever serve a purpose to bring someone back from
> the dead? 

JKR has stated in interverses that Potterverse magic CANNOT bring 
anyone back from death. Death is permanent. In RL folkloric magic, 
mandrakes can bring wealth and act as an aphrodisiac, but them 
'raising the dead' only refers to one not-dead-yet body part.

Caius Marcius wrote:

> A Lord I Can't Name (filk)

ROTFL. This is an EXCEPTIONALLy funny one.











 






From theennead at attbi.com  Mon Feb 11 02:58:30 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 02:58:30 -0000
Subject: Weak vs. Unwilling, Fidelius, Pettigrew's Poor Strategy
In-Reply-To: <a470un+59jj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a47c0m+ahei@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35001

Marina wrote:

> <snipping musings on why Peter didn't throw himself on Sirius'
> mercy after the Potters were killed>

> I don't think we can dismiss out of hand the possibility that Peter 
> just didn't think of it, just as Sirius, freshly out of Azkaban, 
> didn't think of owling Dumbledore to tell him what really 
> happened.  

Neither do I, actually.  It does seem a little odd to me, though, 
because it strikes me as the sort of strategy that would leap
*immediately* to the mind of the Peter we see these days -- a Peter 
who seems to consider the manipulative possibilities of tears and 
deceit first (they're his default response), and only seems to move 
on to consider other options after rejecting Tears-and-Deceit as 
unworkable.

Although...hmmm.  Actually, perhaps that's just not true.  Now that
I think about it, perhaps *flight* is really his default response.
It's how he tries to deal with Sirius Black in PoA.  (For that 
matter, it's how he eventually *succeeds* in dealing with Sirius 
Black in PoA.)  And all through the Shrieking Shack scene, he keeps 
glancing around, looking to the boarded-up windows and the door...
He goes for the Tears-and-Deceit only because he can't just cut and 
run, but that's what he really wants to be doing, and that's what his 
first instinct is to look for a way to do.

And Voldemort accuses him of planning to scarper at the very 
beginning of GoF, doesn't he?  Astute of him, really.

So...yeah.  Okay then.  Never mind.  


> So it's possible that if someone said to Pete, "hey, why didn't you 
> just tell Sirius you were tortured into revealing the Potters' 
> location," it's possible he would've slapped himself on the 
> forehead and exclaimed, "D'oh!  Can't believe I didn't think of 
> that!  Boy, is my face red!"

Oh, I'm sure he thought of it eventually .  I'm sure he thought a 
*lot* about it during all those years he spent as Scabbers.  No 
wonder he was such a depressed-seeming rat.  ("...eat chocolate... 
take nap...eat more chocolate...take nap...")

> Also, even if Peter did think that Sirius would summarily blast him 
> no matter what excuse he gave, that doesn't mean Peter was right.  

Well, I don't really think that Sirius would have, unless Peter had
*really* botched his tale-telling.  But Cindy thought that he would 
have, and she wholeheartedly *approves* of such irrational and bloody-
minded behavior (I understand that she likes ambushes too), so I was 
teasing her.

> The combination of extreme terror he must've been feeling and 
> knowledge of his own guilt may have made it impossible for him to 
> believe that any of James' friends might show him mercy or 
> compassion.

That wouldn't surprise me either.  Also, I suspect that he'd been 
expending quite a bit of mental energy up to that point in time 
convincing himself that they were really hateful people, monstrous 
people, people who had _never_ treated him well, people who had in 
fact treated him very very _badly_, people who had injured him, 
people who richly _deserved_ to be betrayed... 
 
It would be rather difficult, I think, to go from there to: "This 
situation can be salvaged.  I'll just tell them it was forced from 
me.  They'll believe me, and since they can't really hold something 
like that against me, I'll be just fine."


-- Elkins





From oppen at cnsinternet.com  Mon Feb 11 03:50:33 2002
From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 21:50:33 -0600
Subject: "Love" of Lily---did it have to be love?
Message-ID: <01e501c1b2af$437d7180$b6c71bce@hppav>

No: HPFGUIDX 35002

It occurs to me that the basic theory behind L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. can be
perfectly correct, even if Snape and Lily Evans were never, ever in love
with each other.  As in:

In their first few years at Hogwarts, Severus Snape and Lily Potter are in
some classes together, and are assigned to work together.  They find out
that each has strengths and talents the other doesn't (AFAIK Snape is not
mentioned as being star-class material at anything but Potions, while the
most we know about Lily Evans is that her wand was "useful for Charms work,"
from Mr. Ollivander).  So, they end up working together in Potions, where
Snape coaches Evans and works with her after class to keep her from flunking
out, and she reciprocates the favor, helping Snape pass Charms.  Over the
years, this becomes a habit, and they form a firm, but non-sexually-based,
friendship.

After all, we don't know what Lily Evans looked like as a young girl, do we?
Just because Harry thought she was beautiful in the Mirror of Erised,
doesn't mean she was always beautiful.  Until she got her growth spurt,
which could have come in her last couple of years at Hogwarts, she could
have been "Miss Shorty-Greasy-Spot-Spot" to all and sundry.  Or, more
prosaically, who's to say that Snape even goes for redheads?  According to
Sydney Biddle Barrows, the so-called "Mayflower Madam," men divide into two
camps on the subject of redheads---Love 'Em and Can't Stand 'Em.  If Snape
is in the second category, he could be _friends_ with Lily Evans, while
feeling no great attraction for her, and, again for all we know, breaking
the hearts (and certain other things) of half the girls in Slytherin House.
Severus' girlfriend-of-the-moment is never particularly threatened by Lily's
presence in his life, because they're _known_ to only be platonic
friends---who'd want to snog Miss Shorty-Greasy-Spot-Spot, anyway?---and
she's got enough to worry about keeping her trophy-boyfriend away from those
other cows in Slytherin House, who'd steal him right out from under her if
they saw an opening.

So-o-o, after Hogwarts, Severus is recruited by the Death Eaters, while Lily
goes off and gets married---Severus doesn't dance at the wedding, because he
loathed James and couldn't stand to see him happy, but otherwise he didn't
much care.  After a while, he started getting pretty disgusted by the DEs'
activities, and turned mole for the MoM and D'dore, passing them information
as and when he could about what the DEs were going to be up to next.

Hearing that Lord Voldemort _killed his friend_ traumatized Snape, sending
him into a long-term depression (I know more than I care to about that, and
a lot of what he does and says sounds to me like long-term situational
depression) and motivating him to go all-out to help the remainder of the
DEs to be rounded up.  Unfortunately, quite a few of them were able to talk
their way out of trouble, and Snape had good reason to fear for his life.
Professor Dumbledore, knowing his expertise in Potions, gave him a job at
Hogwarts, and possibly felt lucky to get a guy who normally would have been
making a packet in the Wizarding World's potions industry.  (Even D'dore is
allowed to be satisfied when he gets two birds with one stone.)

So---does this theory cover all the ground?

--Eric, list-iconoclast of many lists




From margdean at erols.com  Mon Feb 11 04:49:03 2002
From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 23:49:03 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Love" of Lily---did it have to be love?
References: <01e501c1b2af$437d7180$b6c71bce@hppav>
Message-ID: <3C674D3F.A0456953@erols.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35003

Eric Oppen wrote:
> 
> It occurs to me that the basic theory behind L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. can be
> perfectly correct, even if Snape and Lily Evans were never, ever in love
> with each other. 

<snip theory>

> So---does this theory cover all the ground?

Well, much as I am a fan of male/female FRIENDSHIPS, I'm not sure
it does, because it doesn't account for Snape's hatred of James
Potter, nor his attitude toward Harry.  Not that there couldn't
be other reasons for these, of course, but one of the original
bases for the "Snape-loved-Lily" theory in the first place was
that it provided a believable reason for Snape's animosity toward
James (and to an extent Harry).  If you don't need a relationship
with Lily to explain that, and you don't need it to explain
Snape's leaving the DE's, then . . . what purpose does it serve?


--Margaret Dean
  <margdean at erols.com>



From cindysphynx at home.com  Mon Feb 11 04:26:07 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 04:26:07 -0000
Subject: In Defense of Igor & Pettigrew, The First-Rate Liar (WAS Weak 
In-Reply-To: <a46mne+jk0g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a47h4v+e010@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35004

Elkins wrote:

> Aw.  Poor Igor.  What's so nauseating about him?  At least his 
> standards of personal hygiene seem up to par.  
> 
> You know, I'm beginning to agree with Cindy?  Karkaroff gets 
> nothing around here but disdain.

No, Karkaroff can't catch a break, can he?  I think it is high time 
someone pointed out all of Karkaroff's good qualities.  It's late and 
I'm tired, but uh, this shouldn't take too long.

Yes, Karkaroff cut a deal with MoM to rat out his former colleagues.  
That looks bad, I know.  But what evidence do we *really* have that 
his conversion to the forces of good was not genuine?  Don't laugh.  
Ratting people out is bad in a way, but he was doing it for all the 
right reasons, right?  Reason Number 1 was a legitimate and laudable 
desire to put the wizarding world right by capturing DEs who were 
still at large.  Frank Longbottom can tell us all about how dangerous 
those DEs can be.  Maybe Karkaroff fled when the Dark Mark burned 
because there was *no way* he could ever return to evildoing, because 
he is now *Good*.

Reason Number 2 is to save Karkaroff's own skin, that's true.  I 
think we can feel fairly certain that Karkaroff didn't go to the 
graveyard in GoF.  So he isn't all *that* evil.  He is a reformed DE 
in desperate need of a first-rate witness protection program.  He 
deserves our collective pity and sympathy, not the scorn heaped upon 
him and one of the most demeaning (and hilarious) acronyms ever 
devised. 

Gee, no one even tries to come up with a good psychological theory to 
explain Karkaroff's behavior.  Sirius gets Post Traumatic Stress 
Disorder.  There must be some form of syndrome that would fit 
Karkaroff.


Elkins again:

> So that does it.  I'm inviting Igor out for a few drinks and to 
pick 
> up his S.Y.C.O.P.H.A.N.T.S. membership packet.  We'll go far over 
our 
> limits, and sing old songs loudly and off-key, and then get all 
weepy 
> and bathetic and sentimental before staggering home at dawn.  
> 
> I'd invite Cindy to join us, but...  Well, I fear that the weepy 
> bathetic stuff might prove too much for her.  I wouldn't want her 
to 
> snap and...well, you know.  Kill us.
> 

No, I wouldn't kill you.  I'd send Sir Cadogan over to bop your heads 
together, though.  :-)

Elkins again (about whether the Fidelius Charm can be broken by 
force):

>This is a question that puzzles me because on the one hand, the only 
> reason I can imagine for Pettigrew not utilizing the "they found 
out 
> and came after me, and I just couldn't keep it from them" strategy 
> would be that the information hidden by the Fidelius Charm *can't* 
be 
> wrested from the secret keeper by force.  <snip> But on the other 
hand, if this is the case then I confess myself
> puzzled by the decision to try to bluff the enemy by switching 
secret-
> keepers in the first place.  "They'd never suspect we'd use a 
> weakling like Peter" would seem to imply that the Fidelius Charm is 
> *no* proof against extreme forms of coercion, that the Secret 
Keeper 
> can indeed be forced to reveal his secret through torture or 
Imperio 
> or Veritaserum or whatever forms of magical mind-reading might 
exist.
> 

OK, OK.  How about this?  The Fidelius Charm can be broken by force.  
That's why Sirius and Peter went into hiding.  (How much excitement 
and tension can be generated by any defense that is impenetrable, 
after all?)

Peter's problem, though, is that he never considered the possibility 
that Voldemort would fail in his mission to kill Harry or would fail 
so spectacularly.  When Sirius went to check on Peter, there was no 
sign of a struggle.  So if Peter had tried to lie and say that he 
betrayed the Potters against his will, he would have to explain the 
lack of a struggle.  And he'd have to explain this to a grief-
stricken, powerful Sirius.

No, lying just wasn't going to work.  I do wonder, however, how 
Sirius tracked Peter down at all.  Sirius didn't have his preferred 
means of transport.  So does he just randomly pop himself all over 
Britain looking for Peter?  And why doesn't Pettigrew just apparate 
out of trouble?  Very strange.  

Elkins again:

> No.  No, Sirius would have been utterly justified in blasting 
> Pettigrew on the street for the simple reason that Pettigrew is a 
> *terrible* liar.

<snip>

> You know, I really do have very little patience with pathological 
> liars who aren't even any *good* at it?  God, I hate that.  That 
just 
> annoys the hell out of me.  What's wrong with Peter, anyway?

Oh, such a harsh assessment of poor Peter.  He's not a terrible liar 
at all.  He convinced Sirius and James to use him as secretkeeper, 
probably telling all manner of tall tales about how wild horses 
couldn't drag the information out of him.  He also probably had to 
tell a boatload of lies to be an effective spy.  He certainly told a 
whopper when he accused Sirius of betraying the Potters before he 
blasted the muggles.

No, Peter is a decent liar.  

What's Peter's problem in the Shrieking Shack?  His main problem is 
that he's just plain afraid of dying.  He lies just fine when nothing 
is at stake right then.  Put him in a room with Cold-Blooded Killer 
Lupin and Dead Sexy But Deranged Sirius, where his best chance of 
escape is an unconscious Snape, and, yes, he gets a little tongue-
tied.

Cindy (who can't believe she spends so much time defending liars, 
ambushes, and cold-blooded killing)




From pennylin at swbell.net  Mon Feb 11 04:40:44 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 22:40:44 -0600
Subject: A Sirius Defense
References: <a45u9v+s9pu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C674B4C.5080301@swbell.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35005

Hi --

I desperately want to comment on Elkins' thought-provoking essays(s) on 
canon interpretations but will content myself for the moment with at 
least putting out one small effort in the defense of Sirius ...

cindysphynx wrote:

<snip very amusing & plausible theory of how the Prank really happened>

> 
> Cindy (not mentioning the fact that she also likes the theory because
> it makes Snape look like a screw-up again)

I like any scenario wherein Snape looks worse than Sirius.  <g>

One thing I've been wanting to say on this whole Sirius vs. Snape thread 
of this past week -- whatever you may say about Sirius & his role in the 
Prank & his actions in PoA (whether motivated or caused by PTSD or not), 
Sirius *does* engage in interactive, give-and-take *relationships* with 
other human beings.  Snape does *not*!  I like Snape's complexity, his 
shades of grey .... wondering all the while "What is it that makes this 
guy tick ... I can't wait to find out."  But, his interactions with the 
other characters leaves a little to be desired, does it not?  C'mon 
Snape-fans, you've got to concede that your man Snape really really 
lacks interpersonal skills hugely.  There's a respectful relationship of 
sorts between Snape & Dumbledore, but I don't pick up on any *warmth* 
there.  There is apparently some sort of friendly rivalry between Snape 
& McGonagall, and it's this strangely that I find the most compelling of 
all Snape's relationships as depicted thus far.  There must be some sort 
of a normal human being lurking there if he's capable of having a 
teasing ongoing "friendly" rivalry with Minerva over Quidditch & House 
points.  But really, we have no real sense that Snape has *friends* or 
even interacts socially with anyone for that matter.

So ... as between Sirius & Snape, I'd side with the guy who's got some 
warmth, some substance, some oomph.  For all his shades of gray, I think 
I've finally hit on why I can't get too worked up about Snape.  He's not 
made me care about him.... because *he* doesn't care about anyone as far 
as we know.

Pippin wrote:

> Much as I enjoy shoveling speculation into the plot-holes, I think
> Sirius' motivation as given is enough.

Ah, see, I think there must be more to it than that.  I don't think we 
know the full story yet.  I'm not yet ready to concede that Sirius is 
fully to "blame" for the Prank.  "Fault" and "blame" are complex 
concepts, especially when we only have part of the story & not really 
from the perspective of any of the players.  I don't think we can take 
Sirius' muttered comments in the course of the Shrieking Shack 
revelations as entirely trustworthy.  The man has just escaped from 
Azkaban & lived on the run for 8-9 mths, after being imprisoned for 12 
yrs.  We may dispute whether or not he's suffering from PTSD, but he's 
clearly not a fully-functioning person at that point, and he really only 
interjects a few minor points into Lupin's relation of the barebone 
facts.  We've not had Snape or Sirius sit down with the purpose of 
telling or recalling their side of the story.  I really doubt that 
Snape's snooping around was sufficient to motivate a "prank" of that 
magnitude.

 
> Sirius probably figured Snape would get caught in
> the Willow and punished, not that he would be killed.  Sirius
> seems to have a very narrow focus, a sort of tunnel vision even
> as an adult, so he probably never stopped to think what it would
> be like for Remus if the worst happened,

Tunnel vision as an adult?  How so?

 Sirius hasn't had to relive this experience in
> Azkaban, since it's a happy thought that he got away with it, no
> one got killed and Snape had to quit spying on the willow (not
> stated in canon, but he must have, since he didn't find out any
> thing more).

Aside from the fact that I wonder how exactly would Snape be forced to 
quit spying on the Willow & the Marauders.... I don't know that we 
*know* this was a happy thought for Sirius.  Snapping that Snape 
"deserved" it in the midst of the Shrieking Shack revelations isn't 
exactly evidence that Sirius *really* believes that Snape deserved it or 
believes that he (Sirius) was in the right (and rightfully "got away" 
with his prank).  Sirius might well have very different feelings deep 
down, which he masks with an outer facade of "well, he deserved it."

> What I wonder is how Sirius got off.

As someone else pointed out, we don't know that Sirius "got off" with no 
punishment whatsoever.  All we know is that he presumably wasn't 
expelled since he appears to have finished his Hogwarts years with his 
classmates.

Going way back in time to one of Judy's old posts --

> Judy said
>>> [Sirius is] sorry if something bad happens to one of his friends,
>>>  but he couldn't care less if anything bad happens to anyone else,
>>>  not even if it happened *because* of him. <<
> 
> I asked:
>> Care to elaborate on what you mean here?<

Judy responded:

> 
> It's in my past few posts.  The high points are breaking Ron's leg,
> slashing the Fat Lady, terrifying everyone in England instead of
> asking Dumbledore for help (yes, some people here have excused that
> but I don't buy it), and never being sorry for any of it, in addition
> to saying Snape deserved "the Prank."

Er ... all of this can be explained if you assume it's possible that 
Sirius was suffering from PTSD & dissociating.  But ...

Ron's leg -- Sirius *is* sorry for this!  "Something flickered behind 
Black's shadowed eyes.  'Lie down,' he said quietly to Ron.  'You'll 
damage that leg even further."

Fat Lady -- my guess is that he doesn't remember this one at all.  We 
don't know that he *isn't* sorry in any case though.

Terrifying everyone in England -- a bit of an overstatement, isn't it? 
How's he supposed to make amends for this though?  <g>

Saying Snape "deserved" the Prank -- again ... we can't really know for 
sure what Sirius really truly thinks deep down from this one flippant 
remark.

> 
> 
> Judy also said:
>> > As for whether Azkaban is still an excuse for Black's violent
>> > behavior, even 10 months later, I don't think so. First of all,
>> > PTSD rarely makes people violent, unless they were that
>> > way to begin with.<<
> 
> I asked:
>> Source please?  <g> 

Judy said:

> 
> I don't have time to look up a real source, but I do have a
> Bachelor's, Master's, and PhD in Psychology, and have taught it at the
> university level for 8 years. (I will admit that PTSD isn't my
> specialty, though; in fact, psychopathology in general is out of my
> speciality.) PTSD disorder does greatly raise sympathetic nervous
> system arousal (ie, it raises adrenalin levels) but that on its own
> doesn't usually led to actual violence.

I asked a friend from church who *does* specialize in PTSD therapy (he 
does have a doctorate as well), which is partly why I'm so late 
responding back on this one.  He said that PTSD does not "normally" lead 
to violent behavior but certainly can.  One of the primary "signs" or 
"symptoms" of PTSD is "hypervigilance" which easily leads to 
overreactivity to certain stimuli.  This hyper-sensitivity and 
underlying depression, especially in men, can lead to violence because 
it "feels" more "powerful" than the fear that is really there.  He'd 
read HP and said the Sirius as PTSD-sufferer theory has merit in his 
book.  Reasonable minds can disagree of course.  :--)

Penny







From rose at swicegood.com  Mon Feb 11 03:54:15 2002
From: rose at swicegood.com (roseswicegood)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 03:54:15 -0000
Subject: Harry's "Little Voice"
Message-ID: <a47f97+1006p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35006

In reading GoF, several things occured to me:  when Mad-Eye taught 
the students to overcome the Imperious curse, it seemed he was doing 
V a disfavor by making Harry strong.  What then is the voice that 
guides him?  
I say it's the great wizard Griffyndor, and Harry is somehow a 
throwback to the old wizard.  
The other idea which occured to me:  I hope this has not already been 
covered, that Harry's birth had been prophesied, that Dumbledore and 
others knew this baby would be special.  It seems V wasn't after Lily 
and James at all, but Harry himself, perhaps aware of his special 
gifts.  
One thing more and I'll go away--Harry seems to be the character of 
all the houses: Bravery for Griffyndor, Loyalty for 
Hufflepuff, 'quick thinking' as Ravenclaw, and parsel tongue for 
Slytherin.  V should fear such a person.
Bye.
rose swicegood





From greyshi at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 11 04:45:19 2002
From: greyshi at yahoo.com (greyshi)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 04:45:19 -0000
Subject: Snape, yet again!
In-Reply-To: <a458oi+5h23@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a47i8v+blam@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35007

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "filo_roll" <filo_roll at y...> wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> I have a little question to ask. Why is it that people here love to 
> talk about Snape all the time?  

Hi, I'm a newbie to the group and not in the HP online circles until 
I was tipped off about this group. So this Snape obsession was new to 
me as well, but not unexpected. It seems to be very similiar to 
another fantasy novel series phenomenon: the HUGE popularity of 
Raistlin of the Dragonlance novels from TSR (Wizards of the Coast or 
whatever they are now). It remains to be seen if, like Raistlin, the 
fans are largely female. It seems that people find a bad-boy wizard 
irresistible! Double the points if he's sarcastic and got
overshadowed 
by more popular people in his childhood. Popularity really rockets up 
if he's a complex character who is both fascinating and repelling at 
once. He was evil, or is he good? But he's so mean... :) I'm waiting 
to see when the Unofficial Severus Snape Fan Club is formed or the 
book "Dark Souled Wizards the the People Who Love Them" is published 
(Soon to be on the Oprah Club Booklist). :) :)

--Greyshi

[Mod Note: Unofficial Severus Snape Fan Club?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/snapefans 
-- AFAIK not accepting new members, though. Welcome to the fandom! --John, technoMod and one of the handful of males in-fandom]




From porphyria at mindspring.com  Mon Feb 11 11:44:45 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 03:44:45 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape & the DEs, Reprise 
In-Reply-To: <a41joa+doq0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BF287CBB-1EE4-11D6-9B09-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35008

On Friday, February 8, 2002, at 02:33 PM, Elkins wrote:

> More on Snape and his affection (or lack thereof) for the Death
> Eaters, and other related topics.
>
> ----
> Snape and the Slyth Kids
>
> I know that it's an unpopular opinion around here, but I think that
> Snape really *does* favor Draco and the Slytherins.? Yes, I suppose
> that it might also be in his best interests as a possible future spy
> to stay on good terms with all the Slyth kids' DE Daddies, but I
> don't really believe that's the primary reason he favors them.? I
> think he favors them primarily because Slytherin is his House, and
> because Snape is loyal to House Slytherin in spite of the fact that
> an appalling number of its Old Boys went bad during the last big
> wizarding war.

It just seems to me that his loyalty to Dumbledore probably outweighs 
his loyalty to his house, and this is significant when the two are at 
odds. Granted, Dumbledore probably hopes for the best from the average 
Slytherin student, but all the muggle-hating Slyth families *loathe* 
muggle-loving Dumbledore, so Snape's allegiance to him is suspect from a 
Slyth viewpoint, it already speaks of a certain betrayal of old 
Salazar's pureblood standards. Snape might feel a loyalty to his house 
in peacetime when it simply provides a pleasant opportunity to razz 
McGonagall over the Quidditch match outcomes, but now with signs that 
Voldemort has been on the rise since Harry's first year? When pro-LV 
sentiment seems poised to reemerge from the Malfoys, Crabbes and Goyles 
of Slytherin house just as before? The stakes are different, and Snape's 
loyalty must be a little malleable if it gets trumped by Dumbledore. I 
mean, in theory he could try to stay neutral in a situation which pits 
his loyalty for his house against allegiance to the headmaster, but this 
is very much not his inclination, his personal investments are a lot 
stronger where Dumbledore is concerned. Of course none of the Slytherin 
students know this...it just makes you wonder the extent of what Snape 
is keeping secret from them.

> It's by far the simplest explanation.? It seems perfectly in-
> character to me.? And I don't really see very much in canon either
> to contradict it or to support a different reading.?

Yeah, but like I said in a previous post, this is a series where 
situations are often the opposite of what they seems and plot twists 
abound. Sometimes the simplest explanation is probably true, sometimes 
quite the contrary. Was a polyjuiced Crouch the simplest explanation of 
why Harry's name wound up in the cup? ;-)

> As for Draco, I do think that Snape genuinely likes him -- or at the
> very least strongly identifies with him.? The kid seems to be good
> at potions, he has a vicious and spiteful sense of humor, he's
> partial to hexes and curses, he's prone to envy, and he not only
> hates Harry Potter but has also been trying to get him in trouble or
> expelled ever since their very first week of classes together.? I?
> mean, really.? What's not to like?? ;-)

Well, the fact that he's a spoiled brat. :-) Given that Draco is a 
whiny, privileged kid, I think Snape's habit of letting him get away 
with everything is really a little fishy. Snape seems like the kind of 
guy who takes pride in his talent and works hard at it; it's hard for me 
to see how he'd approve of someone who slides along by malingering, 
falling back on family prestige and generally squirming out from under 
responsibility. OK, maybe he finds Draco amusing on some level, but I 
don't think his indulgence is doing the kid any practical favors. It's 
not teaching him any useful life-lessons or survival skills. Is it even 
teaching him to brew better potions? Snape appears to be giving Hermione 
better marks. If he really liked Draco as much as he seems to, why 
wouldn't he find some slimy reason to deduct points from Hermione's exam 
and add a few special bonus points to Draco's? Or better yet, if he 
really really cares about Draco, why aren't there signs that he's 
mentoring him in some really useful way? Does he even teach him better 
techniques for chopping ginger root? It seems more to me that what Snape 
does is curry Draco's favor in a way that, if Draco were smarter, he'd 
hold with some suspicion.

> ----
> Snape and Lucius, What Snape Knows, and That Sudden Movement

>  The Lucius Malfoy we
> actually see in canon comes across (to me, at least) as an utter
> moron who couldn't even dissemble his way out of a parking ticket.?
> He's about as subtle as a brick, and when Voldemort addressed him in
> the graveyard as "my slippery friend," my first inclination was to
> snort in derisive laughter.? It's a bit...frustrating, that.

Oh, but Lucius is slippery...it's from all that greasing of palms he 
does. :-)

> As for Snape's Sudden Movement (which is beginning to remind me far
> too much of That Goddamned Gleam In Dumbledore's Eye)...

Um, does this mean you're already tired of discussing it? Uh oh...
<...>
> My personal theory on the Sudden Movement is this: Snape knows full
> well that the instant that Harry speaks Lucius Malfoy's name, he will
> have destroyed *any* chance of being believed by the likes of Fudge.
> Fudge will *never* accept a tale that implicates such a wealthy and
> respectable member of society.? So the movement is an instinctive
> gesture of warning -- or of interruption, or even of restraint --
> which is then suppressed almost instantly because (a) Snape can't
> very well go shutting Harry up under the circumstances, and (b) it's
> too late anyway: the damaging name has already been spoken, and any
> hope of gaining Fudge's trust or allegiance has probably been lost.
>
> <shrug>?
>
> Well, that's my interpretation of the Sudden Movement, anyway.? Any
> takers?

I think your theory is plausible, but I can't help but imagine that the 
Movement foreshadows something further in the future than Fudge's 
reaction. I mean, given that his gesture is a little mysterious and all 
(the wording "sudden movement" is deliberately vague), shouldn't it 
indicate more than what is depicted a few minutes later in this very 
scene?

My take on this: I think Snape and Lucius are headed for a day of 
reckoning. The text keeps hinting at something along these lines. 
Snape's evident fondness for Draco, whether it's real or fake, has to be 
headed somewhere, and it seems that Draco goes home and tells Dad how 
wonderful his favorite potions professor is. And surely Snape and Lucius 
would have known each other from their DE days. There's gotta be plot 
potential here...so if we agree that Snape's sudden movement is directly 
in response to the mention of Lucius' name, and that it communicates 
some sort of strong emotion other than naive surprise that Lucius, 
shocker of shockers, is still a loyal DE, well...to me this points to 
some sort of interesting fireworks between the two in a future setting. 
Maybe I just really want to see these guys pitting their respective 
propensities for menace against each other.

Well, OK, here's a theory: In CoS, Lucius shows up at Borgin and Burkes 
to unload some incriminating items that he really doesn't want the MOM 
to find in his house. Presumably he's got a wide variety of dark arts 
items stuffed under the drawing room floor, but he specifically mentions 
*poisons* to Mr. Borgin. So they must be pretty suspicious poisons, you 
know? Not just garden gnome poison or magical spot remover. So that set 
me to wondering where they originally came from. Hmmm. Do we know anyone 
who was a DE back in the day who might have had a talent for brewing 
particularly nasty, illegal, specialized-function poisons? I mean the 
Borgias had their court-poisoner, so why not the aristocratic Malfoy's? 
Well, there you go, that's my theory for what Snape's particular DE 
function used to be. Plus that drawing-room chamber is just too 
intriguing to not come up again. I think these things will tie together: 
Snape and Lucius have a history which will come back into play in a big 
hairy way.

Regarding Avery:

In another post, I said:

> > Also, Avery seems like a coward -- maybe he's really evil but
> > just hyper.
>
> Oh, Porphyria!? Surely you meant to say "he's *not* really evil, but
> just hyper," didn't you?? I certainly hope so, because otherwise we
> may need to have words.? You *know* how I feel about Avery.? ;-)

Well, erm, I think my original reasoning was maybe he's evil and thus 
perfectly loyal to LV and then his histrionic fit would just be a 
strange but effective attention-getting device. But you must grant me 
the merest shred of slack here, because I did post this before your 
touching defense of him. Now I see the error of my ways. However, I'm 
still trying to grok the distinction between a 'toady' and a 'nerveless 
hysteric.' These fine points are beyond my simple ken...you'd better 
keep me away from the S.Y.C.O.P.H.A.N.T.S' Minions' Ball, I'd set off a 
chain reaction of conniption fits amongst the Whining Neurotics in a 
heartbeat. Still, it might be fun to watch, if only it didn't remind me 
of my office so much....

~~Porphyria




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





From porphyria at mindspring.com  Mon Feb 11 11:45:17 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 03:45:17 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's marks
In-Reply-To: <a476p0+jq6l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <D208221E-1EE4-11D6-9B09-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35009

On Sunday, February 10, 2002, at 05:29 PM, catlady_de_los_angeles wrote:
> FR mdawson_design wrote:
>
> > Draco has been getting poor marks from all his teachers - refer to
> CoS - Draco & his father in Nocturne Alley & their conversation about
> Draco's poor marks (and specifically about muggle born Hermione
>
> In that conversation, Lucius said: "I would have thought you'd be
> ashamed that a girl of no wizard family beat you in every exam." That
> does not PROVE that Draco had poor marks, only that his marks weren't
> as good as Hermione's. If they were BETTER than anyone but Hermione,
> then they were good marks that a decent parent would praise. I want
> to believe that Draco is an intelligent child, altho' he (alas) does
> not act intelligent while feuding with Harry.

I'm curious about this subject. Fans of Draco often seem to construe him 
as being really bright. Personally, I'm not sure about that, but I might 
be missing something. What sort of canonical evidence is there? Do we 
have any other indicators of his academic performance besides this 
conversation with Lucius? It's a little hard to interpret: Lucius 
remarks that if Draco's school marks don't pick up that he'll only be 
fit for being a thief or a plunderer. This could imply is marks are low, 
or it might just be an index of Lucius' offense that Draco's was bested 
by Hermione, perhaps just edged out by her.

So is he really a star, or do Crabbe and Goyle just make him look that 
way in comparison? Any Draco fans want to explain?

~~Porphyria



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





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 11 05:29:55 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 05:29:55 -0000
Subject: Galleons, Sickles, and Knuts
Message-ID: <a47ksj+t43l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35010

In Book 1, Hagrid explains Wizard Money to Harry as follows, "The 
gold ones are Galleons. Seventeen silver Sickles to a Galleon and 
twenty-nine Knuts to a Sickle, it's easy enough." 

JKR has stated that she estimates the value of one Galleon to 
be "about five pounds." According to the Harry Potter Lexixon, a gold 
Galleon works out to US $7.33, a silver Sickle to around 43 cents and 
a Knut about a penny.

I can accept a bronze penny and a silver 43-cent coin (probably 
silver clad or colored like a quarter or half-dollar) but a gold coin 
worth $7? At present a 1/10 oz gold coin, barely the size of a nickel 
sells for $45. Is a Galleon the size of a dime? Or is it gold clad 
like the Sacajawea dollar?

Galleons would have to be worth more if only for the fact that in 
Chamber of Secrets the Weasleys buy the entire school supplies for 4 
students for "a very small pile of sickles and just one gold galleon."

Opinions?

Uncmark

[Mod Note: The HP Lexicon has a page devoted to wizarding money --
http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/money.html
--John, technoMod]




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Mon Feb 11 10:24:52 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:24:52 -0000
Subject: Banking theory (Was Re: Galleons, Sickles, and Knuts)
In-Reply-To: <a47ksj+t43l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4865k+ctba@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35011

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
> In Book 1, Hagrid explains Wizard Money to Harry as follows, "The 
> gold ones are Galleons. Seventeen silver Sickles to a Galleon and 
> twenty-nine Knuts to a Sickle, it's easy enough." 
> 
> JKR has stated that she estimates the value of one Galleon to 
> be "about five pounds." According to the Harry Potter Lexixon, a gold 
> Galleon works out to US $7.33, a silver Sickle to around 43 cents and 
> a Knut about a penny.
> 
> I can accept a bronze penny and a silver 43-cent coin (probably 
> silver clad or colored like a quarter or half-dollar) but a gold coin 
> worth $7? At present a 1/10 oz gold coin, barely the size of a nickel 
> sells for $45. Is a Galleon the size of a dime? Or is it gold clad 
> like the Sacajawea dollar?

I always assumed that "gold coins" are adultered in some way (maybe 
electron: silver and gold), or maybe even just golden, with the real 
value stablished by the goverment at more than their intrinsic value 
and less than their fabrication cost (basically, like in the muggle 
world)

> Galleons would have to be worth more if only for the fact that in 
> Chamber of Secrets the Weasleys buy the entire school supplies for 4 
> students for "a very small pile of sickles and just one gold galleon."
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> Uncmark

I've got a theory of my own about banking in the wizard world which 
sort of explains this. It's a bit long, so just bear with it, the 
answer is at the end.

Banking in the middle ages (which is the basic world wizards live in) 
was in its infancy. It was invented by a combination of Jew's ancient 
interest in money and the Christian substitute for it (since it was 
inmoral for a Christian to lend money if planning to get back more than 
they lended). Templars are involved here, but since I've already been 
shouted at this week for OT-ing in the list, I'll let it at that 
(e-mail me for the full story, if you want it). Whatever the reasons, 
banking in the middle ages was mainly for safe-keeping, at a rate (they 
took some of your money in exchange for keeping it safe). This could 
still be in place, for all we know, which would not encourage people to 
keep their money in the gringotts bank (why this is important will be 
seen at the end).

On the other hand, we can also assume that Gringotts works like a 
modern bank. It still presents quite a lot of problems: it seems it 
only has one building (Sirius had to got to Diagon alley to get money 
for Harry's broom), and even assuming it was because his vault was in 
London, it's a very ackward situation (and more than a bit dangerous, 
him being persecuted by justice and all). On the same lines, there is 
no such thing as an ATM (I hope that means the machine that give's you 
your money when you insert your credit card), thus Harry had to take 
money for the whole year at Hogwarts, and the Weasleys had to go to 
London to get their money.

Now for the interesting part: wages. There is no indication about how 
people are paid in the wizard world, but I've lately had the feeling 
that you're not paid monthly into your bank account, but (as was the 
norm in the middle ages), weekly and "on hand", or even dayly.

OK, by now I've probably bored you to death with my ramblings, but 
we're getting to the explanation. Assuming my bank thery (above) is 
correct, it can be deduced that most wizard families (specially the 
ones, like the Weasleys, who live far from their Grngotts vaults) only 
take their money to the bank when it's starting to pile up, since it is 
by no means easy or fast to do it regularly. We know that the money in 
the Weasleys case DOES NOT pile up, so they have very little in the 
bank. The family must save during the whole year to have enough to pay 
for the students's materials, and they carry most of that money with 
them when they go to the Diagon alley. When they arrive, they get 
whatever is in the vault and put it with the rest they've carried from 
home. SO, the Weasleys' fortne in PS is NOT 1 galleon  and some loose 
change, it's quite a bit more, but they just didn't take it to the bank 
(because that means driving all the way to London, or using Floo powder 
which is also exoensive), when they can just hide what little Arthur 
gets from the MoM (hopefully someplace safe from the twins).

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf 





From aiz24 at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 11 12:43:42 2002
From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 07:43:42 -0500
Subject: What's bad about evil? - Baby blues? - Hands off
Message-ID: <F229hCl8aii08N8yxdZ000123ef@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35012

Margaret wrote:

>I remember the line as something more on the order of, "If you're
>going to write about evil, you really do have an obligation to
>show what that means."  I take that to mean, "Yes, there IS such
>a thing as evil, folks, it isn't just all some kind of a mistake,
>or that these guys had unhappy childhoods or are just Terribly
>Misunderstood.  Evil does exist, and this is what it looks like."

That could be a part of it, and JKR could certainly believe that.  However, 
the issue in the interview seems to be less the origin of evil (devil spawn 
or unhappy childhood?) and more the results of it--the scary things parents 
might not want their kids to read.  Here's the quote in context:

		In an exclusive interview with the BBC, she
              said the subject matter of the books may be
              uncomfortable for six-year-olds.

              She told BBC Radio
              Gloucestershire's Nigel
              Ballard: "I do think that,
              on occasion, the
              material is not suitable
              for six-year-olds. But
              you can't stop them
              reading it.

              "I read things when I was very young that
              disturbed me but I don't think that was a
              terribly bad thing.

              "My parents never censored what I read so I
              wouldn't say don't read them to a six-year-old,
              just be aware some of it does get
              uncomfortable."

              Harry is young wizard who finds he has magical
              powers after his parents are killed by a "dark
              wizard" called Voldemort.

              She added: "I am dealing with evil - I am trying
              to examine what happens to this community
              when a maniac tries to take over".

              'Moral obligation'

              Her books also deal with the "reality of how
              evil it is to take a human life".

              She said: "If you are going to write about
              those kinds of things you have a moral
              obligation to show what that involves, not to
              prettify it or to minimise it."

(from 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_944000/944728.stm)

BTW, *the* place for searching JKR interviews is 
www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat.  Motto:  The Goat Knows.

Catlady wrote of Lupin's eyes:

>(I say they're blue, canon doesn't specify)

Leaving us each to muse in perfect freedom.  (I usually see gray.  Maybe 
light brown.)

CMC wrote:

 > A Lord I Can't Name (filk)

Pettigrew begs, "Please, no, no more hand jokes!"  HPfGUers beg, "Keep 'em 
coming, Caius!"

ROTFL,
Amy Z

--------------------------------------------------
   The snake jerked its head toward Uncle Vernon
and Dudley, then raised its eyes to the ceiling.
It gave Harry a look that said quite plainly:
   "=I get that all the time.="
                -HP and the Philosopher's Stone
--------------------------------------------------

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




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 11 10:32:38 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:32:38 -0000
Subject: Money in GofF - a Wizard ATM?
Message-ID: <a486k6+r3q4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35013

I'm rereading GofF and wondered how much wizard gold Harry had left 
from the year before. 

When he was picked up by the Weasley's for the world cup, Mrs. 
Weasley's said she pick up all his school supplies at Diagon Alley. 
Harry meanwhile bought 3 omnioculars (30 Galleons) plus assorted 
other souveniers. 

There is no mention of Harry visiting Gringotts. Did he arrange for 
the goblins to conjure him money? Or did he write a 'wizard check' to 
Mrs. Weasley? Better yet, does Harry have a line of credit? There is 
no mention of wizard credit cards.

Uncmark





From igenite_olwyn at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 11 12:47:33 2002
From: igenite_olwyn at yahoo.com (Olwyn)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 12:47:33 -0000
Subject: Whats in a name?
Message-ID: <003001c1b2fa$48c4a6e0$0200a8c0@Nshare>

No: HPFGUIDX 35014

Elkins Wrote - 

>>Ah, and you will notice that both Tom ("I Am Lord Voldemort") Riddle 
*and* "Gred-and-Forge" have been known to play word games with their 
own names.

Coincidence?  Oooooh, I don't *think* so.<<

Its ok I think you're alright with the twins not pulling an LV with the name thing.  A friend and I went through a whole heap of the character names to see if any more of them could do it and the best we came up with for Gred and Forge was...

Seedy Elf War and Eyesore Waggle. :)  I dont think either of them would be a huge problem.

It could just be we're bad at anagrams, but I do wonder if there aren't any more clues of sides and so on in other peoples names.  Does someones full name anagram out to I'll Kill LV?

Olly


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





From theennead at attbi.com  Mon Feb 11 13:54:22 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:54:22 -0000
Subject: FLIRTIAC -- What's In A Name? -- Draco -- Envy and EEWWWWWer 
In-Reply-To: <003001c1b2fa$48c4a6e0$0200a8c0@Nshare>
Message-ID: <a48iee+mn10@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35015

Tabouli wrote:

> Ahaaaaa, now this brings back my other (more outlandish 
> (subversive, Elkins?) but nonetheless thought-provoking) shipping 
> theory... FLIRTIAC (Filch's Lover Is Regretting Transformation Into 
> A Cat). 

Outlandish?  Subversive?  Nonsense!  FLIRTIAC is *overwhelmingly* 
implied by canon.  Indeed, were I ever to abandon the liminal 
pleasures of the shoreline for the absolutism of the wide-open sea, 
FLIRTIAC would be my vessel of choice.  It is the only ship on which 
I have ever so much as considered booking passage.  

For now, though, I am content to sit here on my rock at the tideline, 
singing merrily to myself and luring only the occasional sailor to 
his doom.


And speaking of people who love cats, Catlady wrote:

> It is to be hoped that Malcolm is from an old Slytherin family, so
> he understands (from parents or older siblings telling him) that 
> Gryffindors and Slytherins hate each other, so being booed by the 
> Gryffindors is only typical Gryffindor nasty behavior...

It is to be hoped, indeed!  (And how I love you, Catlady, for using 
that construction!)

> JKR surely intended "Malcolm Baddock" (MAL... BAD...) to be a 
> Slytherin name.

<laughs>  Oh, I'm sure you're right.  Ah, yes, poor little Mal Bad, 
son of Perfidius Baddock and his second wife, the lovely (if cold-
hearted) Nefaria, not a drop of muggle blood in those veins, nursed 
on unicorn blood and virgin's milk cocktails, cut his first tooth on 
a disobedient House Elf, cast his first hex at the tender age of 
five....

<brightly>

Hey, but don't worry about Malcolm Baddock.  He can make choices just 
like the rest of us.  Right?

<snort>

Ah, what's in a name?  What's in a name indeed?


Olly provided definitive proof that although Gred-and-Forge, like
Tom ("I Am Lord Voldemort") Riddle, have been known to play word 
games with their own names, they are nonetheless _not_ destined
to become Evil Overlords:

> A friend and I went through a whole heap of the character names to 
> see if any more of them could do it and the best we came up with 
> for Gred and Forge was...
> 
> Seedy Elf War and Eyesore Waggle. :)  I dont think either of them 
> would be a huge problem.

Nooooo...no, I think that you must be right.  "Eyesore Waggle" lacks 
that special Evil Overlord cache.  The world is definitely safe from 
the twins.

Thanks, Olly.  I'll rest much easier at night now.

But you know, I was thinking about Riddle and his pretentions, and
I found myself wondering: just who *were* those teenaged "intimates"  
of his who had actually agreed to call him "Lord Voldemort," anyway?  
 
Can you really imagine a fifteen-year-old Slytherin being willing to 
call even a very charismatic and talented peer "Lord Voldemort?"  I 
mean, without sniggering?

My theory is that *all* of Riddle's close friends had come up with 
similarly ridiculous and pretentious anagrams for their names, and
that they used them as nicknames within their little clique.  There
was actually a "Prince Nephridior" as well, you know, and a "Regulus 
Vindex," and an "Eat Me, Calliope."  (Old Eat Me always was kind of 
an odd duck.)

Of course, upon their leaving Hogwarts, Riddle simply *had* to hunt 
them all down and kill them.  There was just no way around it.  But 
that was okay with him, really, because you see, unlike Severus 
Snape, Tom Riddle really never *had* liked any of the members of his 
Old Slytherin Gang.  ;-)


Catlady, again:

> I want to believe that Draco is an intelligent child, altho' he 
> (alas) does not act intelligent while feuding with Harry. 

No, he doesn't generally, does he?  It's disappointing, that -- much 
in the same way that his subtle-as-a-brick-in-your-face father Lucius 
is disappointing.  I think that I'd like it much better, really, if 
Harry had a brighter rival in Draco.

I *did* think, though, that Draco's choice of the 'Densaugeo' curse 
in his impromptu duel with Harry in GoF was quite witty.  It 
surprises me that no one ever seems to bring that one up when they've 
just gone scouring canon for proof (some proof!  *any* proof!  
please!) of Draco's intellect.


Eric wrote:

> Of course, ol' Voldie's sort of a standing warning against _most_ 
> of the Seven Deadlies, except for Gluttony and Lust.

Ah, but surely he has Nagini to represent his Gluttony!

And as for Lust...hey, I know!  How about we modify "Even EEWWWWWWer" 
just a bit?  If we claim that in addition to wanting a male heir of 
his very own sprung from Lily Potter's magical loins, Voldemort also 
just plain *wanted* Lily Potter's magical loins (for the, er, usual 
reasons), then we could ascribe to him *all* of the Deadly Seven.  

We could call this new theory "So EEEEWWWWWWWer it's in the 
SEEEEEWWWWWWer," perhaps.  


> > I find myself wondering when Hermione's going to have to stare 
> > down envy.

> Either when one of her two pals starts dating seriously, and she is 
> no longer _the_ Girl in their lives ("What? You told _her_ 
> that...and not me?") or when she's faced for the first time in her 
> life with real, serious competition in the academic line.

Ooooooh!  I hope it's the latter.  Seriously, I'd love to see that 
plotline.


-- Elkins, thinking she might just hear some human voices out there, 
and so hastily assembling the scuba gear...




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Mon Feb 11 14:07:16 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:07:16 -0000
Subject: A Sirius Defense (and more Snape, naturally)
In-Reply-To: <3C674B4C.5080301@swbell.net>
Message-ID: <a48j6k+6t6f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35016

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce <pennylin at s...> wrote:

> cindysphynx wrote:
> 
> <snip very amusing & plausible theory of how the Prank really
happened>
> 
> > 
> > Cindy (not mentioning the fact that she also likes the theory
because
> > it makes Snape look like a screw-up again)
> 
> I like any scenario wherein Snape looks worse than Sirius.  <g>

Much as I hate to pick nits in an otherwise amusing and plausible
theory, I must point out that it relies on the assumption that Snape
is hopelessly incompetent at sneakiness and surveillance, which is
contradicted by his status as someone who spied on Voldemort and lived
to be grumpy about it.

Here's another theory to throw into the mix: Snape was specifically
trying to find out how to get past the Whomping Willow (hence Sirius'
mention of him nosing around), and he knew, from six-odd years of
observation, that if you get Sirius sufficiently pissed off he'll
blurt out things he'd otherwise not say.  So Snape picks a verbal
fight with Sirius, mentions the Willow in the course of it, and
Sirius, right on cue, blurts out the information.  

I like this theory because it spreads the blame around both to Snape
(who shouldn't have poked his big nose in where it didn't belong) and
to Sirius (who should've kept his big mouth shut).  As a fan of both
S-men, I'm always partial to theories that make them both look like
jerks. <G>

>  C'mon 
> Snape-fans, you've got to concede that your man Snape really really 
> lacks interpersonal skills hugely.  

Oh, totally.  The man's obnoxious and anti-social.  But these are
qualities that bug me to no end in real life, yet utterly fail to
bother me in fictional characters.  In fact, as long as the character
carries off his obnoxiousness with some panache (and Snape certainly
does *that*), I'm likely to love him all the more for it.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From ritadarling at ivillage.com  Mon Feb 11 14:22:56 2002
From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (ritadear2)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:22:56 -0000
Subject: Snape & the DEs, Reprise
In-Reply-To: <BF287CBB-1EE4-11D6-9B09-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a48k40+76i4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35017

Porphyria wrote:


"It just seems to me that his loyalty to Dumbledore probably 
outweighs his loyalty to his house, and this is significant when 
the two are at odds. Granted, Dumbledore probably hopes for 
the best from the average Slytherin student, but all the 
muggle-hating Slyth families *loathe* muggle-loving 
Dumbledore, so Snape's allegiance to him is suspect from a 
Slyth viewpoint, it already speaks of a certain betrayal of old 
Salazar's pureblood standards."

I disagree.  The way I see it, Slytherin is part of Hogwarts and 
falls under general Hogwarts philosophy, which the parents 
must accept (or pretend to accept) when they choose to send 
their children there.  Loyalty to Slytherin (or any) house must 
therefore come second to loyalty to Hogwarts, which is headed 
by Dumbledore.  It is pretty well accepted from Hogwarts past, 
that it is not going to go the way of Durmstrang and teach dark 
arts and become a dark school, and the even the Malfoys, 
Crabbes and Goyles would be foolish to think so.  I think they 
benefit from the liberal philosophy of Hogwarts in that they are 
able to hide their dark alliance and hold prestigious jobs. 

Even Salazar had to succumb to the pressure of his peers by 
allowing his purebred Slytherins to attend school with the 
mudbloods in the other houses, if it were that big of a deal to 
him, why did he not take his house and leave?  

Rita 





From ladjables at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 11 16:11:13 2002
From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:11:13 -0000
Subject: Hermione, Dobby, Memories and Harry Works Alone!/Magical Fireplaces
In-Reply-To: <129120489089.20020209193114@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a48qf1+972k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35018

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Dave Hardenbrook <DaveH47 at m...> wrote:
> 
> Thursday, February 07, 2002, 7:35:07 PM, Whirdy at a... wrote:
> 
> Wac> 1.  Why were there no repercussions when Hermione tore a page 
out of an old 
> Wac> book in the CoS.
> 
> My theories:
> The books in the Hogwarts Library are "regenerating" -- You tear a 
page
> out, and a new duplicate page grows in its place.  Or maybe Hermione
> performed a basic Text-Copy spell onto a piece of scrap paper.
> (Either way, Wizards don't need Xerox machines.)
> 
> -- 
> Dave

I know this may be considered a wasted post but Dave, I think both 
your theories are brilliant.  Especially as they're so simple, I 
mean, why not?
   
 
 And "Ursamajr" <ursamajr at y...> wrote:
>Hi I am new at posting but have been lurking for a while.

Welcome! 

>Some thoughts I had were:
>snip<
>About the room with secret magical powers, maybe it's the kitchen. 
>The fire place could be hooked up to the Hogwarts floo network. The 
>house elves might use this system to travel around Hogwarts and the 
>house common rooms to clean and such without being seen. Maybe Dobby 
>can help Harry access secret and off-limit rooms this way.  

Good thinking, and I hope JKR uses this idea of a Hogwarts floo 
network in later books, I can see it coming in handy if Hogwarts is 
ever besieged by our favourite Dark Lord.  But I think Dobby and 
Winky and house-elves in general can also apparate at free will, 
house-elves having special powers and all that.
Ama    




From porphyria at mindspring.com  Mon Feb 11 19:32:59 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:32:59 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape & the DEs, Reprise
In-Reply-To: <a48k40+76i4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <28559A0F-1F26-11D6-9B09-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35019

Porphyria wrote:
>
> "It just seems to me that his loyalty to Dumbledore probably
> outweighs his loyalty to his house, and this is significant when
> the two are at odds. Granted, Dumbledore probably hopes for
> the best from the average Slytherin student, but all the
> muggle-hating Slyth families *loathe* muggle-loving
> Dumbledore, so Snape's allegiance to him is suspect from a
> Slyth viewpoint, it already speaks of a certain betrayal of old
> Salazar's pureblood standards."

And Rita replied:

> I disagree.? The way I see it, Slytherin is part of Hogwarts and
> falls under general Hogwarts philosophy, which the parents
> must accept (or pretend to accept) when they choose to send
> their children there.? Loyalty to Slytherin (or any) house must
> therefore come second to loyalty to Hogwarts, which is headed
> by Dumbledore.? It is pretty well accepted from Hogwarts past,
> that it is not going to go the way of Durmstrang and teach dark
> arts and become a dark school, and the even the Malfoys,
> Crabbes and Goyles would be foolish to think so.? I think they
> benefit from the liberal philosophy of Hogwarts in that they are
> able to hide their dark alliance and hold prestigious jobs.

I'm not convinced that humbly accepting Dumbledore's philosophy or 
sending your kid to Durmstrang are the only two options available to 
anti-muggle minded parents. After all, in CoS the tensions come out from 
under the surface pretty fast. Lucius schemes to get Dumbledore 
suspended and probably would have tried to get him sacked if he didn't 
think that the Basilisk would kill all the muggle-born students in the 
meantime. Lucius tells Draco that he thinks Dumbledore's the worst 
Headmaster the school's ever had. This implies that maybe Hogwarts 
wasn't always quite as liberal as now; perhaps there were some past 
Slytherin Headmaster's who held more pro-pureblood sentiments.

Draco is all in favor of Snape replacing Dumbledore. Surely Draco must 
think that Snape shares the Malfoys' anti-muggle feelings or he wouldn't 
be recommending Snape to Dad; the issue dearest to Lucius' heart is 
crystal clear. But Snape's reaction to Draco is pretty cagey, at least 
that's how I read it. I mean, I find it impossible to believe that Snape 
is really as much of a bigot as the Malfoys assume; if he were, would he 
risk his life for the anti-LV cause? Would Dumbledore trust Snape as 
much as he does? But if he fails to share the Malfoy family prejudice, 
he also fails to let Draco know this. He doesn't say, 'you know Draco, 
your father's bigotry is morally wrong and I don't share his views.' 
Instead he acts quite flattered by Draco's praise, and just lets Draco 
go on thinking what he'd been thinking all along. This really makes me 
wonder who's zooming who in this scene, and that Snape might be 
concealing his real feelings for some tactical purpose.

> Even Salazar had to succumb to the pressure of his peers by
> allowing his purebred Slytherins to attend school with the
> mudbloods in the other houses, if it were that big of a deal to
> him, why did he not take his house and leave??

I agree that's a pretty good question, but I sort of thought that the 
whole purpose of the house system was to limit the students' interaction 
with the other houses. They eat with their house, sleep in dorms with 
their house, make friends within their house. I wonder if they only take 
classes with other houses due to scheduling constraints or the lack of 
professors; perhaps it wasn't like this 1000 years before. Maybe the 
house system as orignally conceived was enough to convince Salazar that 
the Slytherin would be buffered from the riffraff.

I also agree that by and large everyone at least pays lip service to 
Dumbledore and most people really love him. But Dumbledore's pro-muggle 
stance is probably on the liberal end of the overall wizarding political 
spectrum. Dumbledore remarks that he's rare in that he reads muggle 
press; this seems analogous to Arthur's fondness for muggles which is 
considered quirky by everyone and evidently holds him back at work. 
Presumably the typical wizard is a little neutral or quietly suspicious 
of muggles. Therefore Dumbledore's popularity must rest on other 
factors, and there's some room for anti-muggle sentiment to flare up 
even in a population that's usually happy with his leadership. You're 
right that by and large Hogwart's current liberal stance benefits people 
wanting to seems respectable in polite society, but when there exists 
some hint that Voldemort could return to power at least some wizards are 
willing to throw respectability out the window.

~~Porphyria



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




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Mon Feb 11 17:39:15 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:39:15 -0000
Subject: Weak vs. Unwilling, Fidelius, Pettigrew's Poor Strategy
In-Reply-To: <a46sr7+64t9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a48vk3+9v24@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35020

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" <theennead at a...> wrote:

> In most types of genre fiction, on the other hand, virtuous people 
> resist interrogation.  They just do.  It's a convention of the 
genre: 
> Good Guys Don't Crack. So the question of personal volition is 
> complicated even further in the world of HP by the extent to which 
> the world might operate under the laws of genre convention, rather 
> than those of real life.
 
Umm.... did I mention I'm a Tolkien fan? :-) Now, you'll find out why. 
First of all, you're right. Most run-of-the-mill fiction works on 
"Good Guys Don't Crack". Good guys can become bad guys, and vice 
versa, but you can't stay good and crack under pressure. Star Wars is 
just getting interesting, with the suggestion that Luke could crack, 
when he suddenly stops, announces he's good, and we understand that he 
just missed becoming irrevocably evil. Story after story I read as a 
child where the good guys said, "I'll never talk!" and didn't. After 
all, Princess Leia could resist torture, why couldn't everyone else? 
Why couldn't you just do a Philip Mannering (Blyton's Adventure 
books), and stare at the evil foreign spy while he was hitting you 
over the head with a pistol? 

And, then, one day, I was reading "The Lord of the Rings", and it 
suddenly occured to me that Frodo fails. That he completely cracks 
under pressure. Yet, Frodo's a good person, as good as they come, and 
he completely fails. Very good. I started noticing that it happens 
over and over in Tolkien's stories: Boromir, Beren's companion in the 
Silmarillion, even Denethor. How far are they responsible for what 
happens to them? On the one hand, there's Saruman, who can take full 
blame for everything he's done. (Saruman is the Karkaroff of the 
Tolkien stories. No-one ever defends him.) But then, there's everyone 
else. 

Can Harry Potter examine this? Well, yes, even without breaking the 
rules of the genre. After all, Tolkien did a lot of work on the 
genre's rules. HP is completely original, but it bears many marks of 
being influenced to some extent by Tolkien. There's an indefinable 
touch of Tolkien at all corners. Pettigrew never fails to remind 
people of either Gollum or Wormtongue (and he is called Wormtail isn't 
he?) The Whomping Willow, I would vouch for it, has something to do 
with Old Man Willow. Dumbledore and Gandalf are more similar than they 
are to Obi Wan-Kenobi or any other aged mentor. For one thing, they 
both share what Tolkien the academic knew a lot about, "The Northern 
Theory of Courage" (as opposed to Greek mythology), in which you fight 
not for an eventual victory, or a heaven after, but in the face of 
defeat, for the right side. Just check out Dumbledore's speech at the 
end of the "Goblet of Fire". I've heard many people complain that it's 
hardly motivating and almost sounds like a threat, "Be good and you'll 
end up dead!" but it is so Tolkienian, that even the obnoxiously picky 
professor would have liked it. (Though he would then have launched 
into a critique of Rowling's nomenclature, or a listing of problems 
with the goblin language, as presented.) Now, I know Rowling said 
she's only read Tolkien once, and this is what makes me so certain 
that he's a influence. If you get like me, to where Tolkien is very 
much a key part of your life, you can keep him out of your writing to 
some extent. It's the books that you enjoyed and now only half 
remember that really play around with you. "Les Miserables" and "War 
and Peace" seem to be the most important influences on my writing 
(when I get to revising it), even though I read each only once. 

So, I think there's hope that the fantasy genre will actually push 
Rowling to considering this. My Dad, in fact, is certain that it will 
be addressed, and being rather subversive, has picked Snape.

Most people's reaction to this suggestion, "But no, Snape is the good 
guy. He can't go bad."

No, I don't think he can go BAD, BAD, BAD. But why do we assume that 
he will be strong enough to resist and oppose Voldemort everywhere? Is 
it possible for Snape to betray the good guys under intense pressure? 

The other likely candidate for breaking under pressure might be Percy. 
My poor Percy. /me more identifies with Percy than any other character 
in the story, and is also convinced he will end up dead. Even more 
disturbing is that people seem to see the self-identification as a 
problem, and try to talk me out of it. "Oh, no. You're not anything 
like Percy, even if you do act a bit like it sometimes." 

>>Once you're bearing the magically-binding token 
> of your oath of eternal loyalty to the age's Great Dark Wizard, then 
> I'd say that Checkpoint Charlie isn't even in your range of *sight*
> anymore: you've already gone *miles* past that line.  

Do we know that Peter had the mark in the past? Perhaps, he only got 
it recently? 

> > So far it seems like only Lucius and Mrs. Lestrange stick with 
> > Voldemort because they feel they have a stake in what he's doing.
> 
> And I'm not altogether certain about Lucius.  Yes, I'm sure that he 
> and Voldemort do share certain agenda.  But still.  Lucius doesn't 
> seem at all happy to see the Dark Lord back in action, and IMO 
> there's more to that then simple fear of punishment.  I definitely 
> get the impression that there's a *reason* so few of the DEs went 
out 
> looking for Voldemort the way the Lestranges did.  I think that by
> the end there, he'd grown so completely mad and erratic and 
bwah-hah-
> hah villainish that all but the very nuttiest of his followers 
> (Crouch, Lestranges...) were more than a little relieved to see him 
> go.

Lucius didn't want Voldemort back at all, imho. After all, how would 
Voldemort look at a party? Lucius was living the good life, chumming 
it up with Fudge, donating to worthy causes, and suddenly, Voldie's 
come back, and wants to go all Snidely Whiplash. I'm looking to Lucius 
to betray Voldie when the time comes, and can't see why Voldemort 
isn't expecting it. Much as I hated Voldemort, I'm secretly hoping 
that the plan backfires on Lucius. 

Eileen




From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 11 17:58:32 2002
From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:58:32 -0000
Subject: Snape/Lily & Snape & DE's Reprise 
In-Reply-To: <004e01c1b227$0afe6f40$2324ddcb@price>
Message-ID: <a490o8+39ad@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35021

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" (also known as Lily) wrote:

> Koinonia:
> > I don't even mind a story with a tragic romance and I do 
> like some smoochy stuff.  What I don't like is this picture of 
Snape 
> being so in love with Lily that he turned into this DE who is now 
> just a bitter man.  What a boring story IMHO.

>Tabouli: 
> Boring?  Acchhh, I think you're taking too simplistic an approach 
>here.  Perhaps I should boil the whole LOLLIPOPS creed down to this: 
>something horrible and unknown happened to Snape as a child which 
>left him bitter, insecure and resentful, to the extent of learning 
>curses to avenge and protect himself.  Victimised, abused and, 
>inside, deeply lonely, he was very susceptible to falling painfully 
>in love with a girl who seemed strong and smart enough to save him 
>and, for the first time, showed him the kindness he secretly needed. 
>When she chose someone else, he just continued in the direction 
>where he was already heading. Hence tragic childhood as real reason, 
>Lily as catalyst.

Why does it have to be Lily?  I find that to be boring but I wouldn't 
mind Snape being in love with someone else.  I just get tired of 
Snape being the ugly, mean, ignorant fool who had a crush on the 
lovely, wonderful Lily.  I just don't want the story going in that 
direction.  Here we have Harry who is wonderful, Hermione who is the 
smartest person to walk the face of the earth for some time, 
Ron...well Ron is Ron ( I am for let's give Ron a break), the 
handsome-it-doesn't-matter-if-I-tried-to-kill-Sirius, the calm and 
cool, great Professor Lupin, the brave and popular James, the 
beautiful Lily, and so on.  Then here is Slytherin Snape who falls 
for Lily and that sort of makes him a sorry, pitiful figure cause 
after all surely Snape didn't think that someone such as Lily could 
love him.  Ewwwwww! Just the thought is terrible. *sigh*  

I also want to say that I truly love Harry, Hermione, Ron, Sirius, 
Lupin, James, and Lily.  I just like Snape much better and I'm hoping 
for something better than unrequited love making Snape turn into a DE.
 
> Snape reminds me of the "ex-loser" I described above, who is 
>similarly brilliant, bitter, vengeful and long-term grudge-bearing, 
>and did indeed have a rather bleak childhood and got bullied in high 
>school.......Quite alarming.....  And clung to the crush for 
>absolute years, 
> 
> OK, so Snape wouldn't be as forthcoming about his feelings as that, 
>but otherwise, the symptoms are there...

I'll say it again, is this really what Snape is all about.  Clinging 
to a teenage crush for all these years, turning into a DE and then 
becoming so terribly mean to everyone because of this unrequited 
teenage crush.  Is Snape this weak of a person?  If that is all there 
is to Snape then I will be disappointed in such a shallow man. There 
has to be something else that drives this man besides unrequited 
love.  
 
> Tabouli (who realises with some worry that the above implies she is 
>projecting herself into Lily's shoes... eeeg!)

No comment  ;--) lol

Porphyria said in Message 35008:
>Given that Draco is a whiny, privileged kid, I think Snape's habit 
>of letting him get away with everything is really a little fishy.

I hate to cut anything out of this wonderful post about Snape and 
Malfoy because I agree with all of it. 

I do believe that Snape likes Draco (could definitely be wrong) yet 
Snape is using Draco for a reason we just don't know yet.

>It seems more to me that what Snape does is curry Draco's favor in a 
>way that, if Draco were smarter, he'd hold with some suspicion.

Yep.  Forgive me for just saying I agree.

>...I can't help but imagine that the Movement foreshadows something 
>further in the future than Fudge's reaction.  I mean, given that his 
>gesture is a little mysterious and all (the working "sudden 
>movement" is deliberately vague), shouldn't it indicate more than 
>what is depicted a few minutes later in this very scene?

>My take on this: I think Snape and Lucius are headed for a day of 
>reckoning.

Yes, yes, yes.  I have said this forever.

>The text keeps hinting at something along these lines.  Snape's 
>evident fondness for Draco, whether it's real or fake, has to be 
>headed somewhere...

>There's gotta be plot potential here...so if we agree that Snape's 
>sudden movement is directly in response to the mention of Lucius' 
>name...

I believe this a huge clue that there is some kind of connection 
between Snape and Lucius but I know there are many who don't think 
the sudden movement means anything.

>and that it communicates some sort of strong emotion other than 
>naive surprise that Lucius, shocker of shockers, is still a loyal 
>DE, well...to me this points to some sort of interesting fireworks 
>between the two in a future setting. Maybe I just really want to see 
>these guys pitting their respective propensities for menace against 
>each other.

I don't believe in any way, shape, or form that Snape was surprised 
that Lucius was at the DE meeting.  Nah.  There's something else and 
I also can't wait to find out what it is.

>Do we know anyone who was a DE back in the day who might have had a 
>talent for brewing particularly nasty, illegal, specialized-function 
>poisons?  I mean the Borgias had their court-poisoner, so why not 
>the aristocratic Malfoy's?  Well, there you go, that's my theory for 
>what Snape's particular DE function used to be.  Plus that drawing-
>room chamber is just too intriguing to not come up again.  I think 
>these things will tie together.  Snape and Lucius have a history 
>which will come back into play in a big hairy way.

I also believe Snape's function as a DE had to do with potions.  
However, I don't know if it only had to do with poison.  Just look at 
all the other things that potions can do.  Maybe Snape has some 
inside info as to just what it will take to defeat Voldemort.  
Dumbledore has Snape at Hogwarts for some reason and I think the main 
one is his expertise in potions. 

The first time I read of that chamber room I figured we would see it 
again.  I wouldn't be surprised if Harry visited that room.  

I know I haven't added much to what Porphyria had to say.  I was just 
excited to see someone else say what I have thought for so long in a 
much better way than I could ever say.  I don't like Lucius Malfoy 
but I love talking about him. 

Dear Amy Z welcomed me back a couple of months ago:  Thanks!

Koinonia     

  









From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Mon Feb 11 18:08:17 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:08:17 -0000
Subject: A Sirius Offense 
In-Reply-To: <3C674B4C.5080301@swbell.net>
Message-ID: <a491ah+vqk8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35022

Penny <pennylin at s...> wrote:

> Sirius *does* engage in interactive, give-and-take *relationships* 
> with other human beings.  Snape does *not*!  ... C'mon 
> Snape-fans, you've got to concede that your man Snape really really 
> lacks interpersonal skills hugely. 

Nope, not going to concede it. Remember, we are seeing things from 
Harry's point of view, and Snape and Harry despise each other.  
Sirius, on the other hand, is Harry's godfather, and cares about Harry 
perhaps more than any other person in the world. So, of course Sirius 
comes across as much friendlier in the text than Snape does; Sirius is 
interacting with someone he likes (or loves) and Snape is interacting 
with someone he despises (or even hates.)  
 
Snape knows how to interact with others when he feels like it.  
Remember how he was manipulating Fudge at the end of PoA?  (Well, 
until Sirius escaped and he lost it.)


Penny then referred to some of my old posts, where I said:
>> As for whether Azkaban is still an excuse for Black's violent
>> behavior, even 10 months later, I don't think so. First of all,
>> PTSD rarely makes people violent, unless they were that
>> way to begin with.<<

Penny replied:
> I asked a friend from church who *does* specialize in PTSD therapy 
> ....He said that PTSD does not "normally" lead 
> to violent behavior but certainly can.... Reasonable minds can > 
disagree of course.  :--)

I actually don't think we are disagreeing much here about the effects 
of PTSD.  We both are saying that PTSD doesn't usually cause violence, 
although it can in some cases.  What differs is the interpretation we 
are making of this.  You are emphasizing that PTSD *can* increase the 
probability of violence, and therefore see PTSD as an excuse for 
Sirius' behavior.  I am saying it usually *doesn't* cause violence, 
therefore a person w/PTSD who turns violent must have been more prone 
to violence in the first place than are most people.  

For the record, I don't think Sirius Black is evil.  (Although in a 
parody I am writing, I am currently calling him "Seriously Bad," 
mostly because I haven't come up with a better name yet.)  He's just 
not the type of guy that I like. 

-- Judy (who's just kidding about the title of this post!)




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Mon Feb 11 18:24:31 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:24:31 -0000
Subject: FILK: Another One Fails the Class
Message-ID: <a4928v+khrn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35023

Another One Fails the Class
to the tune of "Another One Bites the Dust" by Queen
listen to the original here:
http://www.queenwords.com/audio/midis/aobtd.mid

NEVILLE:
Here I am in Potions class
With my cauldron on the boil.
I have to get it right this time,
Can't affort to let it spoil.
I measured, I cut and stirred,
But it's never any use.
Instead of turning royal blue
My potion's gone chartreuse.

SNAPE:
Another one fails the class.
Another one fails the class.
And another one flunks, and another one flunks,
Another one fails the class.
Hey! Ten points from Gryffindor!
Another one fails the class.

HARRY AND RON:
It doesn't matter what we do,
We can never get it right.
We might as well resign ourselves 
To detention every night.
Is it garlic?  Is it eye of newt?
How did we mess it up?
We tried to drink the end result,
But it dissolved the cup.

SNAPE:
Another one fails the class, etc.

HERMIONE:
I never get a potion wrong,
My work is all first-class.
I've got the textbooks memorized,
My lecture notes kick ass.
I do it! I get it right!
But it seems I cannot win.
Snape just calls me a know-it-all
And gives points to Slytherin.

SNAPE:
Another one fails the class, etc.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From cindysphynx at home.com  Mon Feb 11 18:40:51 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:40:51 -0000
Subject: Which Good Guy Might Crack? (WAS Weak vs. Unwilling, Fidelius, )
In-Reply-To: <a48vk3+9v24@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4937j+qtdo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35024

Eileen wrote:

> The other likely candidate for breaking under pressure might be 
Percy. 
> My poor Percy. /me more identifies with Percy than any other 
character 
> in the story, and is also convinced he will end up dead. Even more 
> disturbing is that people seem to see the self-identification as a 
> problem, and try to talk me out of it. "Oh, no. You're not anything 
> like Percy, even if you do act a bit like it sometimes." 
> 

Hmmm.  Which good character is most likely to Crack?  I can't imagine 
Snape cracking, either.  Is there any evidence that Snape even feels 
pain?  He has this big knot on his head at the end of PoA, and all he 
cares about is winning a medal.  Nope, I can't see it.

Would Hagrid Crack?  Yep.  Of course.  In a New York minute.  A few 
weeks in Azkaban was about all Hagrid could handle.  So much for the 
idea that Good Guys Can't Crack.  Perhaps Good Guys are allowed to 
Crack if they are Sensitive and Lovable enough?

Sorry, C.R.A.B. fans, but I see Ron as susceptible to Cracking under 
sufficient pressure.  Harry will never Crack, and Hermione will never 
Crack, so I guess it has to be Ron.

Unfortunately, it seems that McGonagall might have been written to 
Crack at some critical moment.  She failed at one of her big jobs 
(standing watch over Crouch Jr.), and I have to wonder if this is 
supposed to suggest some form of yet-to-be-revealed weakness.

Cindy (who would Crack, but would cut a really good deal first)




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 11 18:36:37 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:36:37 -0000
Subject: How To Kill Peter 
In-Reply-To: <a45u9v+s9pu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a492vl+q6jt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35025


> Marina wrote (about Peter and Avada Kedavra):
> 
> > And while we're on that topic -- what were Lupin and Black 
planning 
> > to cast on Peter in the Shrieking Shack before Harry stopped 
them?  
> > Were they actually going to AK the guy, or are there some 
> forgivable 
> > killing curses out there?
> > 

The AK is an unforgivable curse BECAUSE it kills someone, so no, they 
aren't any "forgivable killing curses."  And yes, Remus and Sirius 
were going to AK Peter.  Would they have faced life sentences in 
Azkaban for doing it? Absolutely.  Did they care?  No.  Their hatred 
of Peter was so great that it probably seemed a fair trade.  It makes 
it all the more meaningful what Harry does then.  He stops them from 
killing Peter, not to save Peter, but to save Remus and Sirius.

Even if there was some spell (other than AK) they could have used to 
kill him, it would still be murder and I'm sure the MoM would treat 
it the same.  Now, maybe the jury would refuse to convict (given the 
circumstances) but that's another issue.

The real question is, how was Harry going to kill Sirius?  He doesn't 
learn about AK until 4th year.





From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 11 18:34:59 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:34:59 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape/Lily & Snape & DE's Reprise
Message-ID: <F47noaBumjl6uvoIt9400002110@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35026

> >Porphyria said in Message 35008:
> >There's gotta be plot potential here...so if we agree that Snape's 
> >sudden movement is directly in response to the mention of Lucius' 
> >name...
>Koinonia said:
>I believe this a huge clue that there is some kind of connection between 
>Snape and Lucius but I know there are many who don't think the sudden 
>movement means anything.

The thought that came into my head is that it may have been a simple 
uncontrolled act of negation; an attempt to get Harry to stop what he was 
saying, but without tipping his hand. Maybe Snape is worried that Fudge is 
working both sides of this particular alley and that, by naming names, it'll 
get back to LV just how much the 'good guys' know about the competition?

J

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





From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 11 18:22:08 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:22:08 -0000
Subject: more Prank, explaining Sirius
In-Reply-To: <F127Ibf0YxrbS0uTgch00006aa2@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a4924g+b5b2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35027

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Erin Ridgeway" <puddin210 at h...> wrote:
> 
> So, Sirius stalks off, and after he cools down he starts thinking. 
He 
> realizes he probably shouldn't have told Snape all that. But then 
he starts 
> to rationalize what he did. He reminds himself that even though 
Remus is a 
> werewolf, he's still Remus. He 
> simply cannot wrap his mind around the idea that Remus isn't Remus 
when he's 
> in werewolf form, or that Werewolf!Remus might kill Snape. Werewolf!
Remus 
> would recognize Snape, scare the heck out of him, and send him 
packing, tail 
> between his legs (har), leaving the Marauders to mischief as usual.
> He doesn't 
> realize what could've really happened until 
Dumbledore/James/Remus/whomever 
> rake him over the coals for it, then he feels the proper remorse. 
As a 
> result of the Prank, though, Snape becomes even more insufferable, 
so Sirius 
> isn't about to apologize. He feels guilty, so subconsciously, he 
decides 
> that it's way easier to reaaaally hate the guy than to tell him 
he's sorry, 
> and anyway, he should've known better than to go if Sirius told him 
to, duh. 
> Sirius talks himself into believing that he wasn't really the one 
who 
> screwed up, Snape was as much at fault as he was, and therefore, 
he's not 
> the one to blame, not entirely.
> 
> Sirius's continued references to Snape's sliminess and nosiness, 
his 
> insistance that "he had it coming", and his intense hatred of Snape 
for 
> essentially no good reason seem to me to be a defense mechanism. 
Way down in 
> the dark recesses of his soul, Sirius knows he did something very 
wrong, but 
> he's not about to admit it, because his brain is convinced that 
Snape 
> deserved it, and that nothing would've really happened to him 
anyway.
> 
> And there, ladies and gentlemen, is my Theory. Be gentle, I've 
never put 
> forth any sort of theory before.

I can agree with part of your theory.  Sirius's continuing insistance 
that "Snape had it coming," sounds EXACTLY like he is trying to 
rationalize his own misdeed.  It's easier to stay angry at Snape 
rather than admit to the fault within himself.

I don't agree, however, that Sirius ever thought to himself something 
like, "Remus won't REALLY hurt him," because Sirius had spent plenty 
of time with Remus in wolf form, and should have known better than 
anyone what Remus was capable of.  Please note that Sirius never 
dared get near werewolf-Remus unless he was in his animagus form.

I love both Sirius and Severus, but I'd really love to smack Sirius 
in the head and say, "Apologize already!"





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 11 18:44:06 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 18:44:06 -0000
Subject: Cosmetic Magic and Wizard Attitudes - No Wizard Cosmo
Message-ID: <a493dm+jdo3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35028

I was rereading posts about cosmetic surgery and wondered how 
different attitudes towards physical beauty were in the wizard world.

There is little reference to media in the wizard world. There is the 
Wizard's Wireless Network as the magic equivalent of radio, but no 
reference to Television or Movies.

As far as printed word, we have the Daily Prophet which sells for 
only 5 knuts (5 cents Muggle money? At that price, why wouldn't Harry 
subscribe?)

There is Witch's Weekly which might be a tabloid, naming Gilderoy 
Lockhart Most Charming Smile Five-Times and writing gossip articles 
of Rita Skeeter about Hermione.

In Prisoner of Askaban,  Harry sees wizards over the latest article 
in Transfiguration Today (a daily paper?) We can assume there are 
other wizard magazines, but no mention of them appear at Hogwerts 
There is a list of items banned in the Hogwarts corridors. The few 
examples listed by Dumbledore are jokes and gags, but the full list 
posted in Filch's office has 437 items.

My point is there is no mention of a Wizard eqivalent of Cosmopoliton 
or Vogue and no mention of beauty magic. Hermione uses Sleekeasy's 
Hair Potion to style her hair for the Yule Ball in GofF but says it 
was too much work for everyday. She straightens her teeth 
by  'tricking' Madame pomfrey into overshrinking them after a curse.

Hogwart's girls. Slytherin specifically, are described as plain and 
the witches of Diagon Alley are are described closer to the crones of 
scary stories than Elizabeth Montgomery in Bewitched.

My sister (who got me hooked on HP) argued with her daughter that if 
she could do magic she'd spell her hair first thing, lose extra 
weight with a gesture, and have an automatic house.

Molly Weasley, a powerful witch and mother, does use magic for her 
housework. In GofF she cooks for 11 people before the World Cup, yet 
she doesn't use magic to resemble a model.

I think the witching community simply does not stress looks as much 
as the muggle world. I've heard the Wizard described as in the past 
century in much of its culture. I'm sure some of the upper crust 
spells away blemishes, but by and large its not first prority in most 
wizards' lives. 

In a world where Madam pomfrey can heal cuts instantly and set bones 
in minutes, there would be magic to set hair in the same time. I'm 
sure clothing could be self-fitting and cleaning if a magician 
bothered developing the spell. 

The majority of wizards probably do not develop new spells but merely 
do the magic out there. Most humans just use new appliances but don't 
build them.

Uncmark
 







From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Mon Feb 11 19:14:20 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:14:20 -0000
Subject: Lily's taste in men; Why all the Snapetalk?
In-Reply-To: <a490o8+39ad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4956c+f5d7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35029

"koinonia02"  wrote:
>...here is Slytherin Snape who falls 
> for Lily and that sort of makes him a sorry, pitiful figure cause 
> after all surely Snape didn't think that someone such as Lily could 
> love him. Ewwwwww! Just the thought is terrible. *sigh* 

> I also want to say that I truly love Harry, Hermione, Ron, Sirius, 
> Lupin, James, and Lily. I just like Snape much better and I'm
hoping 
> for something better than unrequited love making Snape turn into a 
DE.<

It's interesting, I adore Snape and the thought of him in love with 
Lily doesn't bother me at all.  I figure, why is it Snape's fault if
Lily had boring tastes in men, and went for bland jock James instead 
of brilliant, enigmatic Snape?  *I* think Snape is extremely lovable,
and if Lily disagreed, well, I'm obviously going to think she just 
doesn't know how to appreciate him.  


On the topic of why people here talk (and talk and talk) about Snape,
I see at least two reasons.  One is that Snape elicits widely 
different responses from people -- most people love him or hate him. 
So, his fans and detractors spend lots of time trying to win converts
to his side.  With someone like Dumbledore (whom almost everyone
likes) or Wormtail (who is just so pathetic), there is less debate.
The second reason is that we don't know much of Snape's backstory,
which leaves lots of room for speculation.  Why and when did he become 
a Death Eater? Why and when did he leave the DEs?  What was his 
mission at the end of GoF?  There are some other characters who raise 
strong reactions (Sirius, and to some extent, Hagrid), but they have 
less gaps in their backstories.

-- Judy




From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Mon Feb 11 19:24:36 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:24:36 -0000
Subject: How To Kill Peter
In-Reply-To: <a492vl+q6jt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a495pk+686o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35030

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jklb66" <jklb66 at y...> wrote:
> 
> > Marina wrote (about Peter and Avada Kedavra):
> > 
> > > And while we're on that topic -- what were Lupin and Black 
> planning 
> > > to cast on Peter in the Shrieking Shack before Harry stopped 
> them?  
> > > Were they actually going to AK the guy, or are there some 
> > forgivable 
> > > killing curses out there?
> > > 
> 
> The AK is an unforgivable curse BECAUSE it kills someone, so no, they 
> aren't any "forgivable killing curses."  And yes, Remus and Sirius 
> were going to AK Peter.  Would they have faced life sentences in 
> Azkaban for doing it? Absolutely.  Did they care?  No.  Their hatred 
> of Peter was so great that it probably seemed a fair trade.  It makes 
> it all the more meaningful what Harry does then.  He stops them from 
> killing Peter, not to save Peter, but to save Remus and Sirius.
> 
> Even if there was some spell (other than AK) they could have used to 
> kill him, it would still be murder and I'm sure the MoM would treat 
> it the same.  Now, maybe the jury would refuse to convict (given the 
> circumstances) but that's another issue.
> 
> The real question is, how was Harry going to kill Sirius?  He doesn't 
> learn about AK until 4th year.

I think that accounts for Harry's hesitation, at least in part.  He
couldn't kill Sirius, but he could probably blast him good (although
which spell he was going to use I don't know. Maybe he didn't either).
 I'm guessing he cornered Sirius and pointed his wand at him more out
of rage than anything.  Probably hadn't thought it through, and when
Sirius says "So, you're going to kill me, are you Harry?" it occured
to him that he didn't exactly know how but he wasn't going to back
down so easily.

--Dicentra, who is glad Harry didn't have the guts/knowledge to kill him




From midwife34 at aol.com  Mon Feb 11 19:27:38 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:27:38 -0000
Subject: Cosmetic Magic and Wizard Attitudes - No Wizard Cosmo
In-Reply-To: <a493dm+jdo3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a495va+ej3s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35031

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
>wondered how 
> different attitudes towards physical beauty were in the wizard 
world.
> 
Obviously, they aren't that much different as the girls at Hogwarts 
thought Cedric Diggory was handsome, and the guys were falling all 
over Fleur, the babe.
> 
> 
> My point is there is no mention of a Wizard eqivalent of 
Cosmopoliton 
> or Vogue and no mention of beauty magic. Hermione uses Sleekeasy's 
> Hair Potion to style her hair for the Yule Ball in GofF but says it 
> was too much work for everyday. She straightens her teeth 
> by  'tricking' Madame pomfrey into overshrinking them after a curse.
> Hogwart's girls. Slytherin specifically, are described as plain and 
> the witches of Diagon Alley are are described closer to the crones 
of 
> scary stories than Elizabeth Montgomery in Bewitched.

The bar maid in Diagon Alley is described as attractive.As for the 
girls in Slytherin, as they say here in the muggle world , "Beauty 
may be skin deep but ugly goes to the bone". Perhaps you have to have 
a smidgin of inner beauty present for a cosmetic spell to work.  
Gilderoy does say something in CoS about starting his on line of 
wizarding beauty products, and he does mention robes and fashion when 
discussing someone, but I have forgotten who he was referring to now. 
Whether there is a wizarding version of cosmo or not, is debateable. 
You have to keep in my mind that the story is told from Harry's point 
of view, and I don't suppose a fashion magazine would grab a 14 year 
old boy's attention. 
> > 
> Molly Weasley, a powerful witch and mother, does use magic for her 
> housework. In GofF she cooks for 11 people before the World Cup, 
yet 
> she doesn't use magic to resemble a model.

I can't explain this one as obesity and wizarding cures for it have 
never come up in the books.
> 
> I think the witching community simply does not stress looks as much 
> as the muggle world. I've heard the Wizard described as in the past 
> century in much of its culture. I'm sure some of the upper crust 
> spells away blemishes, but by and large its not first prority in 
most 
> wizards' lives. 
> 
> > The majority of wizards probably do not develop new spells but 
merely 
> do the magic out there. Most humans just use new appliances but 
don't 
> build them.

Who knows? It just really hasn't come up much in the books, and as I 
said before, It might have alot to do with the PoV being Harry's. But 
human nature is human nature and I think there is enough examples in 
the books to point to the fact that we share the same standards of 
beauty.

Jo Ellen
> 
> Jo Ellen




From jmmears at prodigy.net  Mon Feb 11 19:55:39 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:55:39 -0000
Subject: A Sirius Offense
In-Reply-To: <a491ah+vqk8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a497jr+1vkc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35032


> Penny <pennylin at s...> wrote:
> 
> > Sirius *does* engage in interactive, give-and-take 
*relationships* 
> > with other human beings.  Snape does *not*!  ... C'mon 
> > Snape-fans, you've got to concede that your man Snape really 
really 
> > lacks interpersonal skills hugely. 
  

Judy wrote:
> Nope, not going to concede it. Remember, we are seeing things from 
> Harry's point of view, and Snape and Harry despise each other.  
> Sirius, on the other hand, is Harry's godfather, and cares about 
Harry 
> perhaps more than any other person in the world. So, of course 
Sirius 
> comes across as much friendlier in the text than Snape does; 
Sirius is 
> interacting with someone he likes (or loves) and Snape is 
interacting 
> with someone he despises (or even hates.)  
>  
> Snape knows how to interact with others when he feels like it.  
> Remember how he was manipulating Fudge at the end of PoA?  (Well, 
> until Sirius escaped and he lost it.)
> 

I think that what Snape is actually doing with Fudge would be 
classified as shamelessly sucking up, not actual interaction.  In 
this case, Snape seems to have brought Sirius to "justice" which 
will make Fudge look good, so Fudge (ever the consumate politician) 
is stroking him reflexively. He's never really connecting with him, 
and drops him like a bad habit when the situation changes.  It 
doesn't seem that Snape's self-serving statements to Fudge have any 
effect on Fudge's actions at all. Sorry, but I've got to agree with 
Penny's statement above.  Snape has no effective  "people skills" at 
all except for when he's threatening children.


> Penny replied:
> > I asked a friend from church who *does* specialize in PTSD 
therapy 
> > ....He said that PTSD does not "normally" lead 
> > to violent behavior but certainly can.... Reasonable minds can > 
> disagree of course.  :--)


Judy wrote:
> I actually don't think we are disagreeing much here about the 
effects 
> of PTSD.  We both are saying that PTSD doesn't usually cause 
violence, 
> although it can in some cases.  What differs is the interpretation 
we 
> are making of this.  You are emphasizing that PTSD *can* increase 
the 
> probability of violence, and therefore see PTSD as an excuse for 
> Sirius' behavior.  I am saying it usually *doesn't* cause 
violence, 
> therefore a person w/PTSD who turns violent must have been more 
prone 
> to violence in the first place than are most people.  

I have no expertise in PTSD, but it seems that common sense would 
dictate that one's response to PTSD would have to depend on the 
trauma which caused it in the first place.  For example, if it were 
induced by say, being trapped and nearly killed in an earthquake, 
then I wouldn't expect that an individual would be provoked to 
violent behavior by it since the incident was more or less a random 
act of nature.  However, if it were caused by being imprisoned in 
the most soul-destroying prison in existance as a result of being 
framed for the deaths of 2 dear friends by another dear friend, who 
was now a threat to the only child of the murdered couple, then it 
seems plausable that Sirius' response would not be to give Pettigrew 
a stern talking to (whew, that's the longest sentence I've ever 
written). There are loads of examples of Viet Nam vets with PTSD who 
behaved violently out of character, as a result of horrific wartime 
experiences. I don't think that there is any canon evidence for 
Sirius having a violent nature in his pre-Azkaban days, and I've 
always assumed it was as a result of his hellish past 12 years.

Jo Serenadust







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Feb 11 20:25:52 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 20:25:52 -0000
Subject: A Sirius Defense
In-Reply-To: <3C674B4C.5080301@swbell.net>
Message-ID: <a499cg+ns0i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35033

Penny wrote:
>>
So ... as between Sirius & Snape, I'd side with the guy who's got 
some warmth, some substance, some oomph.  For all his 
shades of gray, I think I've finally hit on why I can't get too worked 
up about Snape.  He's not made me care about him.... because 
*he* doesn't care about anyone as far as we know.<<

True. But some of us rather enjoy speculating about  what it  
*would*  take to make Snape care about someone :-). Sirius, for 
all his dead sexiness, leaves me cold. Yeah, he's got plenty of 
charm. I can't help feeling suspicious of someone like that. I've 
met too many people who use their people skills, well, the way 
Voldemort used to use his. I'm not saying Sirius is Evil, just that 
his thoughtlessness and his patronizing (making Lupin an 
unwilling participant in the prank, his reasoning for 
choosing Pettigrew) might cause him and Harry some more 
grief somewhere down the road.

 Penny quoting me:

> Sirius probably figured Snape would get caught in
> the Willow and punished, not that he would be killed.  Sirius
> seems to have a very narrow focus, a sort of tunnel vision even
> as an adult, so he probably never stopped to think what it 
would
> be like for Remus if the worst happened,

Penny asked:
>Tunnel vision as an adult?  How so?<

Well, strangling Harry in order to get his hands on Scabbers, for 
example.  It may be that PTSD explains why Sirius doesn't plan 
beyond his immediate goal or reconsider on his own in the light 
of further developments, but it could also be that he's always 
been like that. Look at the way he reacts to Snape at the end of 
GoF. He knows, whatever passed between them as teenagers, 
that Snape has saved Harry's life (as Sirius has yet to do), that  
Dumbledore trusts him, and that Snape has just stuck his neck, 
or should I say his arm, out for Harry and Dumbledore once 
again. And yet he  can't manage anything but fury, fear and 
loathing.  (Snape  reacts the same way, but then we know Snape 
is messed up.) 

My theory, which I will call WOZ (for Wizard of Oz) is that Sirius, 
Lupin and Snape are like The Scarecrow, The Cowardly Lion 
and The Tin Woodman. Sirius is thoughtless, Lupin is cowardly 
(by his own admission!) and Snape is heartless.  In order for the 
story to have a satisfactory resolution, they will each have to face 
their flaws and overcome them, or be else be utterly defeated by 
them.  IMO, it is dramatically neccessary  that more than 
circumstance keeps Sirius from being a satisfactory 
replacement for  the father Harry has lost, for Harry himself has 
to step into those shoes. Indeed, it is this, and not going to live 
with Sirius, that produces Harry's patronus in PoA. 

It is to be hoped that Lupin, Snape and Sirius will take all three of 
the remaining books to resolve their situations, for as soon as it 
is done their stories will be over. Indeed, I am most worried 
about Hagrid. It seems he has  learned discretion (assuming he 
had permission to breed the screwts),shown courage and found 
love. He's doomed! (sob!)

Penny, quoting me:
 Sirius hasn't had to relive this experience in
> Azkaban, since it's a happy thought that he got away with it, no
> one got killed and Snape had to quit spying on the willow (not
> stated in canon, but he must have, since he didn't find out any
> thing more).

Penny asks:
<<Aside from the fact that I wonder how exactly would Snape be 
forced to 
quit spying on the Willow & the Marauders.>>

A magical restraining order? But Siriusly,  if Snape was told that  
further evidence from him is inadmissable against the 
Marauders (does my evidence count for nothing?) and will only 
serve to prove that Snape has been spying on them against 
Dumbledore's orders, that would be reason enough for Snape to 
quit. Especially if he is threatened with expulsion if  he doesn't.  

Penny continues:
... I don't know that we 
*know* this was a happy thought for Sirius.  Snapping that 
Snape 
"deserved" it in the midst of the Shrieking Shack revelations isn't 
exactly evidence that Sirius *really* believes that Snape deserved 
it or 
believes that he (Sirius) was in the right (and rightfully "got away" 
with his prank).  Sirius might well have very different feelings 
deep 
down, which he masks with an outer facade of "well, he 
deserved it."

Well, in that case, would you argue that Snape didn' t _really_ 
ever intend to turn Sirius or Lupin over to the Dementors? That 
deep down he has Neville's best interest at heart? That his 
coldness is just a facade? IIRC all those arguments have been 
made on Snape's behalf.  Personally,  I don't think the characters 
are all just pretending, nor are they merely victims of 
circumstance. I think they have some real issues to work through 
and that this will be painful. Yes, they are going to have to suffer, 
and I think this is the real reason why some of us are so eager to 
prove that our faves  only need a little love and kindness for their 
true goodness to show. If only it were that simple...

Pippin






From siskiou at earthlink.net  Mon Feb 11 20:23:56 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 12:23:56 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Which Good Guy Might Crack? (WAS Weak vs. Unwilling, Fidelius, )
In-Reply-To: <a4937j+qtdo@eGroups.com>
References: <a4937j+qtdo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1716472265.20020211122356@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35034



Hi,

Monday, February 11, 2002, 10:40:51 AM, cindysphynx wrote:

> but I see Ron as susceptible to Cracking under 
> sufficient pressure.

A big spider might do it ;)

Honestly, I think he might get close, but turn things around
at the very end.

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





From ladjables at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 11 21:19:20 2002
From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 21:19:20 -0000
Subject: Mudblood as Racial Epithet: Another take on the "stomp" /Re: Malfoy on the train
In-Reply-To: <a3s16r+gr5g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a49cgo+tmaf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35035

It's just fascinating how we Potter fans see everything so 
differently.  I see nothing wrong with the twins' actions on the 
train, but then, I adore Fred and George.  Uncmark's excellent post 
got me thinking, however, as I declare something to be uncmark's 
again let me quickly apologize to Devin, whose "Godric's Hollow as 
site of final showdown" theory I mistakenly attributed to uncmark.  
In the words of Pumbaa, Devin, "I gravel at your feet", sorry 'bout 
that! That said, I want to address the train incident from the point 
of view of moral outrage as well as provide some more support for F&G.

Draco Malfoy gets the prize for violating the most taboos in one 
mouthful.  Now I know insulting the memory of a dead boy and 
revelling in the future deaths of his classmates are the factors that 
pushed everyone over the edge, but  

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
>He jerked his head at Ron and Hermione. "Too late now, Potter! 
>They'll be the first to go, now the Dark Lord's back! Mudbloods and 
>Muggle-lovers  first! Well--second--Diggory was the f--"
>snip<

> Malfoy's taunts got worse through the book until in my opinion he 
> got what he deserves on the train home.

Mine too.  Please note the use of mudblood, because it's the key to 
how Malfoy's insults develop not just in the book, but the series. 
JKR explained the term in CoS, where she devotes the 
chapter,"Mudbloods and Murmurs", to the incident when Draco first 
uses the term.  Ron says to Harry that "it's about the most insulting 
thing [Draco] could think of" to call Hermione (CoS, CH.7, pp.115-
116, US Edition).  JKR reiterates in GoF, after the Quidditch Cup, 
where Draco also refers to Hermione as mudblood, that "Everyone 
present knew that "Mudblood" was a very offensive term for a witch or 
a wizard of Muggle parentage" (GoF, CH. 9, pp.122, US Edition). Then 
Draco uses it again on the train, that's twice in the same book.      

My point?  Mudblood is comparable to a racial slur.  It's not 
analogous to calling someone common blood, please, who cares?  No, 
"mudblood" applies to a specific minority, (not necessarily a 
numerical minority), it marks a group for the purpose of humiliating 
them.  Mudblood is not a slur familiar to us, but I'm sure we can 
think of some.  Someone who uses an ethnic slur, especially if it's a 
favourite addition to their vocabulary, is a racist.

uncmark again:
> Fred and George's part? In my opinion they were watching the back 
> of their brother and his two friends against a trio that they knew 
> to be the sons of Death Eaters. 
> 
> To make it more personal, Lucius Malfoy had almost killed their 
> little sister in CofS with the Tom Riddle Diary and his son is 
> threatening that "They'll be the first to go, now the Dark Lord's 
> back! Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers..."
  
 
Thanks to uncmark, we can now simply move the train incident into our 
reality.  Who is Draco?  The son of the man who had a hand in your 
sister's/friend's abduction, who comes from a long line of 
illustrious KKK figures and is unrepentant about it.  For whatever 
reason, what does he say?  He speaks ill of the dead, someone who 
died on Sept 11th, glorifies in it, and on top of that, calls your 
friend a, say, n*****.  Now, how do you FEEL?  Pretend you're Draco, 
and say these words yourself.  Imagine insulting someone in this 
manner.  Than imagine you're the one insulted.  How would the 
recipient of the slur react?  You, his friend?  The sibling of the 
abductee?  And so on.  Everyone will be offended but may not react 
similarly.  By specificallly giving mudblood an alter ego in our 
reality, I'm trying to illustrate just how morally offensive Draco's 
remarks are, and what his use of them implies about his character.  
Then we can examine how different people respond when confronted by 
these statements.

Back to HPverse: We could say Draco doesn't know any better, but 
while Draco thinks calling someone a mudblood is acceptable, he also 
knows it is hurtful.  He is using it specifically to cause pain.  I 
cannot like Draco for wanting to make people feel they are inferior, 
that's evil.  F&G like a good joke, even at their expense, for e.g. 
when they try to cross the age line and end up with matching beards.  
They're not cruel, and they don't get off on anyone's disabilities or 
differences.  They may turn Neville into a canary, but I'm sure 
they'd be among the first to help Neville if he's in trouble.  They 
certainly didn't steal his Remembrall.  They may leave a ton-tongue 
toffee for Dudley, not because he's a Muggle, but because he's a 
"great bullying git" (GoF, CH.5, pp.53, US Edition).  F&G have their 
own moral code, but Draco?  A victim of his parents' ideological 
inculcation?  Sure, but he is also a teenager who is exposed to 
diversity and CHOOSES ignorance.  He knows mudblood can scar someone 
deeply, even if he doesn't really understand why.  And yet it's a 
weapon he likes using.  

So F&G find themselves around Malfoy when he manages to offend just 
about everyone on the planet.  What happens?  Someone, I'm sorry I 
don't remember your name, said Draco crossed the line.  Actually, 
with each scathing remark Draco crossed EVERYBODY's line, but as we 
saw, everyone reacted differently, with a hex, curse or jinx.   And 
then, when Draco is rendered unconscious,  F&G step, not stomp, step 
on him, which is symbolic: Draco and his attitudes are beneath them.  
Stepping over may have meant they were over the incident and had 
moved on.  I think stepping ON implies a certain nonchalance but 
without forgiving Draco's words. F&G know while Draco isn't worth 
their efforts, letting off steam is.  It makes them feel better.  And 
one last dig is typical of the immature.  In an odd way, that's 
amusing, and that's F&G all over, cracking jokes as they roll them 
out the door.  It defuses the hex attack.  Now kicking would have 
exacerbated it. 

uncmark:
> Noone kicked them while they were down, although I 
> wouldn't have minded if F&G tried to make up by leaving the trio 
> some  of there ton tongue toffees or canary creams.
 

Frankly, if F&G HAD kicked M, C&G in a blind rage, I would have been 
upset, horrified, but it still would have been justifiable to me.  
When you cross someone's line, all bets are off.  But the fact that 
F&G et al didn't permanently disfigure those boys is significant.
   
> Cindy wrote about Fred,George, and HRH 
>Bad guys kick their foe when they are down and helpless and 
>unconscious.  Good guys do what they have to do and move on.  They 
>do NOT curse people just for saying something they don't like, 
>stomp them, and then leave them there powerless to rescue 
>themselves.  

Oh yes they do.  Good people often lash out and strike below the 
belt, attack, maim and kill when they're pressed to their limits, out 
of sheer frustration and an inability to deal with a foe who 
represents everything they abhor.  Not everyone is blessed with the 
inner fortitude to move on, that's what the strong man does.  Good 
men can be weak and can fail, simply because they are human.  That's 
why it's so hard to identify the good.  Every action yields a 
reaction; this is no less true when faced with evil.  But when moral 
outrage is the response, who are we to decide what is "good"?  Or HOW 
do we decide?   Good is complex.  Something JKR understands very well.

uncmark again:
> I'd like to see Malfoy redeem himself (a favorite theme among group 
> members) but I don't see any of them having the integrity or moral 
> fiber to make a hard choice. Still i hope someone might surprise me.

Much as I dislike Malfoy I'm also not averse to his redemption.  But, 
in that moment, he violated everyone's sense of decency and got what 
he deserved.  I choose to see the hexing on the train as an 
expression of righteous anger, and Fred & George reacted the way F&G 
are supposed to react.  On principle, I cannot judge them until I'm 
in their shoes.  And even then, how someone should react to a 
situation if they've been offended to their moral core is a deeply 
personal decision.
Ama   





From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 11 21:54:38 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:54:38 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups]Pettigrew joke (Was: What's bad about evil? - Baby blues?... 
Message-ID: <F158buW5RNB6HfMVur600001f97@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35036


Amy Z wrote:
>Pettigrew begs, "Please, no, no more hand jokes!"  HPfGUers beg, "Keep 'em
>coming, Caius!"

Hm... "I lost my finger," Peter said pointedly.

Liz

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




From maryblue67 at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 11 21:55:31 2002
From: maryblue67 at yahoo.com (Maria)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:55:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: The Prophesy
In-Reply-To: <1013455484.4368.47641.m6@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020211215531.79328.qmail@web11106.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35037

rose swicegood wrote: 

> The other idea which occured to me:  I hope this has not
> already been 
> covered, that Harry's birth had been prophesied, that
> Dumbledore and 
> others knew this baby would be special.  It seems V
> wasn't after Lily 
> and James at all, but Harry himself, perhaps aware of his
> special 
> gifts.  
> One thing more and I'll go away--Harry seems to be the
> character of 
> all the houses: Bravery for Griffyndor, Loyalty for 
> Hufflepuff, 'quick thinking' as Ravenclaw, and parsel
> tongue for 
> Slytherin.  V should fear such a person.


One thing that came to my mind as you said this (i have to
say that why Voldie might have want to kill Harry is
something that i had also wondered - telling Lily that she
needn't die, that he wanted the baby...): might it be the
first of the two true predictions of prof. Trelawney? I'm
not sure if, when Dumbledore says that "That make the total
number of true predictions two" or something like that, he
said what the first one is, i don't rember him doing so.
What do you think?

Maria

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com



From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 11 22:29:24 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:29:24 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Which Good Guy Might Crack? (WAS Weak vs. Unwilling,
 Fidelius, )
Message-ID: <F204lZsHYwh71ysJlvd0001b7e8@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35038

Cindy wrote:
>Sorry, C.R.A.B. fans, but I see Ron as susceptible to Cracking under
>sufficient pressure.  Harry will never Crack, and Hermione will never
>Crack, so I guess it has to be Ron.

Meh. As much as I like Ron (and Weasleys in general for that matter), I 
agree with you that of the Trio he is the most likely one to Crack. I just 
don't want him dead. :(

>Unfortunately, it seems that McGonagall might have been written to
>Crack at some critical moment.  She failed at one of her big jobs
>(standing watch over Crouch Jr.), and I have to wonder if this is
>supposed to suggest some form of yet-to-be-revealed weakness.

Well, I don't know about McGonagall...I think she protected Crouch Jr. to 
the best of her abilities. But, still, with JKR, everyone's a suspect.

>Cindy (who would Crack, but would cut a really good deal first)

Yeah. Reeeeeally good.

Liz (who wonders why we capitalise "Crack")

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




From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 11 22:36:37 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:36:37 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How To Kill Peter
Message-ID: <F20crvvf2XNm3SIE0xg00015512@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35039


>From: "jklb66" <jklb66 at yahoo.com>
>The real question is, how was Harry going to kill Sirius?  He doesn't
>learn about AK until 4th year.

Harry wasn't thinking necessarily about *how* he was going to kill Sirius in 
the Shack. He was more thinking about just getting it done. No doubt the 
adrenaline was running high, and I don't know about Harry but when my 
adrenaline is pumping, I don't think about how. I just want to get my job 
done (granted, killing Sirius wasn't *his* job, but...).

Also, Harry was very angry. And so again, he wasn't thinking about how. He 
was faced by the person who he believed had killed his parents, and he was 
more interested in revenge by the method of thereof.

Liz (who's sure she just made absolutely no sense...)

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




From theennead at attbi.com  Mon Feb 11 23:23:11 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 23:23:11 -0000
Subject: Why Suspect Lupin?  (WAS: Snape, Lupin's Mistakes Again)
In-Reply-To: <a41f2f+q3l1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a49jov+6jvr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35040

Mahoney wrote:

> On another subject, has anyone speculated that as for Black having 
> suspected Lupin as being the spy, there might have been some reason 
> related to, I dunno, Lupin's personality that suggested it? I.e., 
> something other than, say, general distrust of werewolves? 

<raises hand>

I have.  

"'They call it the Dementor's Kiss,' said Lupin, with a slightly 
twisted smile."

Ooooh, yes.  There's *definitely* a dark streak to Lupin's 
character.  He's got Edge, which is one of the reasons that I like 
him so much.  (Without his Edge, he'd be a bit sappy, if you ask me.  
Far too *nice.*  Too...well, too ewww to be trewww, shall we say.)  I 
don't think that Lupin's werewolf status was the only reason that he 
was suspected at all.  Not by a long shot.

But then, I think that it may be hard to separate Lupin's dark side 
from his lycanthropy when we talk about the reasons his friends may 
have had for coming to suspect him -- or for that matter, even when 
we talk about our *own* feelings about him. That notion of "the wolf 
is always there, even when you can't see it" is far too central to 
even our own werewolf mythos, let alone that of the Potterverse.  

Mahoney:

> I Was thinking...the 'Jekyll & Hyde' type is one way of looking at 
> Lupin; but what if he's less split down the middle? What if he's 
> actually a bit...wolfy? He acts mild-mannered and nice, because he 
> *is* generally mild-mannered and nice; but even the mild-mannered 
> nice people can have dark emotions and urges. 

Yes.  I think that if we didn't know that Lupin were a werewolf that 
Edge of his would still be an evident aspect of his character, but 
the fact that we *do* know -- as did the Marauders -- makes it all 
that much harder to ignore.  

Still Mahoney:

> And if he had a bit of a wicked streak, which he only let his close 
> friends see, it would make more sense for Black to think that Lupin 
> was the type to maybe be amenable to Voldemort's ways and thus 
> become a spy. 

Well, I think that we get to see quite a few signs of Lupin's "wicked
streak" in PoA, and that they do make it easier to imagine how Black
could have come to suspect nice, mild-mannered, intellectual Remus as 
the spy in their midst.  After all, *we* suspected him, didn't we?
;-)

Leaving aside the question of his capabilities (Lupin is certainly 
both clever enough and sufficiently emotionally-controlled to have 
been an effective spy), and of his social vulnerability (aside from 
the lycanthropy itself, the fact that Lupin's condition renders him 
effectively chronically-ill and terminally-nemployed would have made 
him far more vulnerable than any of the others to temptation by 
offers of financial security or enhanced social standing), and
focusing instead purely on questions of character, I see a number of 
things which might have made him seem suspect.

For starters, he's apparently chosen to specialize in the Dark Arts 
(er...*Defense* Against Dark Arts, that is).  It's not clear 
whether he was drawn to this field because of being a werewolf or in 
spite of it, but either way it's a little suspicious, and would surely
have seemed far more so during the days of Voldemort's reign.  

Then there's his sense of humor.  It's dry, but it can also be a 
little bit black:

"Professor Lupin had come back.  He paused as he entered, looked 
around, and said, with a small smile, 'I haven't poisoned that 
chocolate, you know...'"

Of course he's joking, and the humor there is primarily self-
deprecating: Lupin knows full well that to the students he must 
appear somewhat disreputable. It's a joke designed to release tension 
and put the kids more at ease with him, and it works beautifully.  
But it is a little dark.

His demeanor when practicing magic is casual in a way that could be 
read as indicative of darkness as well.  On more than one occasion in 
PoA, JKR uses the word "lazy" or "lazily" to refer to aspects of 
Lupin's wand work.  This speaks to his competence, of course, but 
it's also a trifle unsettling, because "lazily" is a loaded word in 
the Potter books.  It's how Snape speaks when he is being 
deliberately cruel; it's the adverb consistently applied to the 
Malfoy drawl.  And in GoF, voldemort gets an awful lot of "lazily" as 
well.  "Lazily" is how the Potterverse's sadistic characters behave.  
In JKR's idiom, it's really a neutral word at all. 

Then there's also Lupin's tendency to speak of dark matters in a 
cool, light, or even breezy fashion.  The angrier or more upset he 
is -- or the more potentially emotionally upsetting the subject under 
discussion -- the lighter and milder his tone becomes.  We see that 
whenever he has to deal with Snape's unpleasantness, we see it in 
Shrieking Shack when he responds to Hermione's outing him as a 
werewolf, and we see a lot of it whenever he talks to Harry about the 
dementors.

When Harry asks him why the dementors came to the Quiddich match, for 
example:

"'They're getting hungry,' said Lupin coolly, shutting his briefcase 
with a snap."

That "coolly" sort of chills the blood, doesn't it?  And he gets even 
worse when he tells Harry about the Dementor's Kiss.  There's 
the "slightly twisted smile," of course, but even beyond that, 
Lupin's entire tone as he describes the Kiss is light, casual, 
breezy; it's very nearly bemused.

There is, of course, nothing in the least bit "wicked" about using 
this technique to disconnect from upsetting matters; it's a form of 
emotional self-protection.  But it's a habit that is horribly prone 
to being misinterpreted by others.  It can all too easily be misread 
as callousness or inhumanity, or even as cruelty.  

(I've had a lot of personal experience with this one, as I share 
Lupin's tendency to take on a facetious tone when angry or upset, or 
when discussing distressing subjects.  There have been many times 
when I've discovered -- much to my dismay -- that somebody I'd 
*thought* I was getting along with quite well had actually come 
away from a conversation absolutely convinced that I must be a truly 
horrible and cruel and uncaring person.  It's always a bit of a 
shocker, when that happens.)

Of course, you'd think that Sirius and the Potters would have known 
Lupin well enough not to be dismayed by that sort of thing, but...you 
never know.  Horrible things were happening.  I can easily imagine 
how Lupin's breezy and off-hand manner when discussing, say, somebody 
that the group actually *knew* having been tortured or murdered might 
have given even his friends pause, particularly if they were already 
becoming suspicious of him for other reasons.

Even Lupin's compassion could, viewed in a certain light, make him 
seem a little suspicious, because it's a compassion born of 
sensitivity and insight, of the ability to "read" others, to deduce 
other people's personal vulnerabilities and motives.  Lupin's very 
good at that; it's what makes him a good teacher.  But that form of 
sensitivity can also be a rather unnerving trait, particularly in a 
paranoid situation, one in which there are *secrets* that must be 
kept hidden.  On a certain level, an emotionally astute individual 
*is* a spy -- he knows your secrets...or at least he makes you feel 
as if he does -- and I don't think that it did much for the others' 
sense of security around Lupin.  I think that his very sensitivity 
probably made him seem suspect.

When we're talking about Darkness, also, I think that Lupin's 
sensitivity to others is one of his most suspect character traits 
because while wisely used that sort of sensitivity can lead to 
compassion, used with ill-intent it turns to sadism.  If you can tell 
where somebody's vulnerabilities lie, then you may know how to help 
them, but you also really know how to *hurt* them.  And while Lupin 
rarely uses his sensitivity cruelly, he certainly does know *how* to 
do it.  His rebuke to Harry at the end of Chapter 14 -- "Your parents 
gave their lives to keep you alive..." -- is devestatingly 
effective.  It's also slightly...

Well, intent is everything here.  Lupin truly believes that murderous 
Black is trying to hunt Harry down, and the kid really *isn't* taking 
the threat as seriously as he ought to be.  But if Lupin's comment 
hadn't been delivered with such undeniably good intent, if the 
context had been different, then one might even be tempted to call 
it "vicious."  Lupin really does know how to target the jugular, and 
there are times when I get the definite sense that he's got a bit of 
a taste for it as well.  He's not a sadist...but he could be, and 
if he ever did go bad, I think that's exactly how he'd do it.  It 
does come across as a "dark streak" to his personality, IMO, and I 
can easily imagine how that aspect of his character could have made 
him seem highly suspect.

Of course, where I think that Lupin's capacity for sadism comes 
across the most clearly is in Shrieking Shack.  Others, I know, have 
disagreed with my reading of Lupin's lines there -- we had a thread 
on this a little while back, and it reached an impasse pretty 
quickly -- but I still maintain that in Shrieking Shack, Lupin's 
anger has pushed him to the brink of sadism.  

Everyone gets bestial at the end of PoA, of course -- that's the 
entire point -- but Lupin's particular *mode* of beast-ness does, 
IMO, come across as considerably more "Dark" than either Sirius or 
Pettigrew's respective forms of beastliness.  

So...um, yeah.  I do think that there are a lot of things about 
Lupin's character other than his lycanthropy that might have tempted 
Black and the Potters to suspect him as the spy.  There's a streak of 
Darkness there, to be sure.

Good thing, too, 'cause otherwise he wouldn't be nearly so 
interesting.  Or nearly so sexy.


-- Elkins, to whom never even *occurred* that others might find 
anyone but Lupin the sexpot character of the older generation, and 
who was shocked -- just shocked! -- to learn otherwise.  ("'Sirius Is 
Dead Sexy?'" she read to herself, and then blinked in confusion.  
"Sirius?" she repeated blankly.  '*Sirius?*  Is that...that's a joke, 
right?"  Then she remembered the flying motorcycle, and nodded to 
herself.  'Ah,' she thought.  'Okay.  I guess some people do like 
that sort of thing.')  

(We won't even get into her response when she discovered the Snape-Is-
Sexy people.)




From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 11 23:42:37 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:42:37 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Mudblood as Racial Epithet: Another take on the "stomp"
 /Re: Malfoy on the train
Message-ID: <F273aeldiBkFVTpzvUg0001533f@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35041

Ama wrote:
>Draco Malfoy gets the prize for violating the most taboos in one
>mouthful.

*hands Malfoy the gold statuette* Display it with pride. *rolls eyes*

"uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
> >He jerked his head at Ron and Hermione. "Too late now, Potter!
> >They'll be the first to go, now the Dark Lord's back! Mudbloods and
> >Muggle-lovers  first! Well--second--Diggory was the f--"
> >snip<
>
> > Malfoy's taunts got worse through the book until in my opinion he
> > got what he deserves on the train home.

My mouth dropped open the first time I read that sentence, I had to read it 
about four times to get the full effect of it. Muggle-lover all depends on 
the delivery whether or not it is an insult (here it is an insult, 
obviously), but mudblood is bad. V. bad. And insulting the memory of a dead 
classmate, especially a recently dead classmate, is horrible.

<<snip wonderfully cited part about "Mudblood" in CoS and GoF>>

>My point?  Mudblood is comparable to a racial slur.  It's not
>analogous to calling someone common blood, please, who cares?  No,
>"mudblood" applies to a specific minority, (not necessarily a
>numerical minority), it marks a group for the purpose of humiliating
>them.

Mudblood is no different than (please excuse my language, its just por 
ejemplo) n*gger, sp*c, fag, or that old saying "The only good injun is a 
dead injun." Ethnic/racial slurs are something that shouldn't be tolerated. 
</rant>

Mudblood is not a slur familiar to us, but I'm sure we can
>think of some.  Someone who uses an ethnic slur, especially if it's a
>favourite addition to their vocabulary, is a racist.
>
>uncmark again:
> > Fred and George's part? In my opinion they were watching the back
> > of their brother and his two friends against a trio that they knew
> > to be the sons of Death Eaters.
> >
> > To make it more personal, Lucius Malfoy had almost killed their
> > little sister in CofS with the Tom Riddle Diary and his son is
> > threatening that "They'll be the first to go, now the Dark Lord's
> > back! Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers..."

>From the fight that Arthur and Lucius engaged in inside of Flourish and 
Blotts in CoS, I would say that Weasleys and Malfoys have an exceptionally 
long history of fighting. Probably began hundreds of years ago when a Malfoy 
spat on a Weasley and the Weasley retaliated (because heaven knows a Weasley 
would never start it ;) and Ron has to get that temper somewhere). While 
they are not wealthy, I have no reason not to speculate that the Weasleys 
aren't as old a family as the Malfoys. The nasty incident with the diary in 
CoS and nearly killing poor Ginny and name calling is adding fuel on the 
fire for the next generation of Weasleys and Malfoys (Malfoy?).

Ama:
>Thanks to uncmark, we can now simply move the train incident into our
>reality.  Who is Draco?  The son of the man who had a hand in your
>sister's/friend's abduction, who comes from a long line of
>illustrious KKK figures and is unrepentant about it.  For whatever
>reason, what does he say?  He speaks ill of the dead, someone who
>died on Sept 11th, glorifies in it, and on top of that, calls your
>friend a, say, n*****.  Now, how do you FEEL?  Pretend you're Draco,
>and say these words yourself.  Imagine insulting someone in this
>manner.  Than imagine you're the one insulted.  How would the
>recipient of the slur react?  You, his friend?  The sibling of the
>abductee?  And so on.

As a person whose good friend died long before his time this summer, I have 
to say that anyone who speaks ill of Cory dies a slow, painful death. The 
grief is still far too near for me to take any insult about him lightly.

>Back to HPverse: We could say Draco doesn't know any better, but
>while Draco thinks calling someone a mudblood is acceptable, he also
>knows it is hurtful.

Ignorance, IMO, is a very bad excuse in any case.

<<snip (extensive) list of Gred and Forge's pranks and jokes>>

I love their senses of humour. :)

F&G have their
>own moral code, but Draco?  A victim of his parents' ideological
>inculcation?  Sure, but he is also a teenager who is exposed to
>diversity and CHOOSES ignorance.  He knows mudblood can scar someone
>deeply, even if he doesn't really understand why.  And yet it's a
>weapon he likes using.

I've said it once in an essay in WH, I'll say it again. Ignorance isn't an 
excuse, and even if people say it is, its not a very good one. Ignorance is 
not bliss, ignorance is ignorance and there's no merit in trying to make it 
anything but. I think if Draco ever learns to get a life and think for 
himself instead of listening to what his father may or may not tell him, 
that he might come out of this war alive.

>F&G step, not stomp, step
>on him, which is symbolic: Draco and his attitudes are beneath them.
>Stepping over may have meant they were over the incident and had
>moved on.  I think stepping ON implies a certain nonchalance but
>without forgiving Draco's words. F&G know while Draco isn't worth
>their efforts, letting off steam is.  It makes them feel better.  And
>one last dig is typical of the immature.  In an odd way, that's
>amusing, and that's F&G all over, cracking jokes as they roll them
>out the door.  It defuses the hex attack.  Now kicking would have
>exacerbated it.

Ooh, most impressive, I like. I didnt think of it necessarily as symbolic, 
more like "He's a Malfoy, he's in my way but he's not going to get out of 
it, so I'll step on him."

<<snip Cindy's Good Guys Don't Sink To The Foe's Level Talk>>
>Oh yes they do.  Good people often lash out and strike below the
>belt, attack, maim and kill when they're pressed to their limits, out
>of sheer frustration and an inability to deal with a foe who
>represents everything they abhor.  Not everyone is blessed with the
>inner fortitude to move on, that's what the strong man does.  Good
>men can be weak and can fail, simply because they are human.  That's
>why it's so hard to identify the good.  Every action yields a
>reaction; this is no less true when faced with evil.  But when moral
>outrage is the response, who are we to decide what is "good"?  Or HOW
>do we decide?   Good is complex.  Something JKR understands very well.

Wow. I likes.

Liz

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




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 11 23:04:11 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 23:04:11 -0000
Subject: Neville, Memory Charms and O.W.L.'s
Message-ID: <a49ilb+752e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35042

Got into an online chat about memory charms and Neville. Several 
online pointed out that Absentmindedness and forgetfulness are 
definite signs of memory charms (Bertha Jorkins' reputation and 
Gildaroy Lockhart' Obliviate Overdose)

The symptoms for Neville were clear in Book 1. We only find the cause 
in book 4. It's logical(or thge wizard equivalent) to cast Obliviate 
on a child who witnessed his parents being tortured.

Dumbledore says Neville will share "When he is ready" so I'm guessing 
that an overprotective caster thinks they are shielding him.

BUT Fifth year and OWL's is coming and with the exception of  
herbology, Neville is only an average student. The key questions to 
ask are Is Neville aware of his memory charm? He visits his parents 
in the hospital and remember Cruciatus. Does he know his memory was 
altered and was it meant as only a temporary remedy? 

I feel Neville is addled by some spell, but the sorting hat 
recognized his qualities of bravery and placed him in Griffindor. 
Remember him standing up to Malfoy and fighting Goyle?


I was seeing several possible subplots for Neville.

A) O.W.L.'s are coming this year for Harry's class. After consulting 
with McGonagall, Dumbledore decides that Neville has matured enough 
to handle the memory and with O.W.L.'s coming, they decide Neville 
would have the best chance at the tests with the charm removed. 
Neville spends a few days in the infirmary but later gives Hermione 
a run for top marks and even surpasses her in Herbology.

B) Neville on his own formulates a potion he developed in herbology 
(based on mandrake maybe?) Unhindered,he gives Hermione a run for 
top marks, surpasses her in Herbology, and works on a potion to cure 
his parents.

C) Harry keeps it under his hat, but Hermione (or Ginny maybe) while 
researching Voldemort or Crouch find a reference to the Longbottom's 
torture and decide to help Neville. After research they find a 
potion or charm and decide to cure him without Dumbledore's approval.
 
D) Snape, for reasons undisclosed, slips Neville a potion to cure 
his memory charm, or more sinisterly gives a lesson on restorative 
potions for charms planting the idea for the HRH trio. Maybe he means 
it as bait so he can have evidence to expel them later.

uncmark






From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Mon Feb 11 23:54:05 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 23:54:05 -0000
Subject: A Sirius Offense
In-Reply-To: <a497jr+1vkc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a49liu+luj0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35043

Penny  wrote:
>>> ... C'mon Snape-fans, you've got to concede that your man Snape 
>>> really really lacks interpersonal skills hugely.<<< 
 
And I replied:
>> Nope, not going to concede it. Remember, we are seeing things from 
>> Harry's point of view, and Snape and Harry despise each other....  
>> Snape knows how to interact with others when he feels like it.  
>> Remember how he was manipulating Fudge at the end of PoA?.

And Jo Serenadust replied:
> I think that what Snape is actually doing with Fudge would be 
> classified as shamelessly sucking up, not actual interaction....<

Oh, Snape is *definitely* sucking up to Fudge in that scene!  
Absolutely!  But, it takes good interpersonal skills to successfully 
suck-up, and Snape was doing great (Order of Merlin and all) until 
Sirius escaped and ruined it for him. 

Sure, we don't see Snape acting nice, but then, he probaby doesn't 
want to. If I may paraphrase Binns here: "Just because a wizard 
doesn't act nice to people, doesn't mean he *can't*."


Jo Serenadust also said:
> I have no expertise in PTSD, but it seems that common sense would 
> dictate that one's response to PTSD would have to depend on the 
> trauma which caused it in the first place.  For example, if it were 
> induced by say, being trapped and nearly killed in an earthquake, 
> then I wouldn't expect that an individual would be provoked to 
> violent behavior by it since the incident was more or less a random 
> act of nature.  However, if it were caused by being imprisoned in 
> the most soul-destroying prison in existance as a result of being 
> framed for the deaths of 2 dear friends by another dear friend, who 
> was now a threat to the only child of the murdered couple, then it 
> seems plausable that Sirius' response would not be to give Pettigrew 
> a stern talking to (whew, that's the longest sentence I've ever 
> written). There are loads of examples of Viet Nam vets with PTSD who 
> behaved violently out of character, as a result of horrific wartime 
> experiences.

As far as I know, no one has theorized that there are different forms 
of PTSD, based on the type of experience that caused the trauma.   
Actually, the theory is that there is a "generalized stress response" 
that can be triggered by many different kinds of trauma.  Witnessing 
violnce certainly can effect behavior, but I'd say it does so 
independently of PTSD.  As for Azkaban, JKR is very clear that it 
causes depression, not rage or uncontrollable aggression.  I'd say the 
research on Vietnam vets actually supports my view that PTSD causes 
aggression only in those already predisposed to it. The vets most 
likely to be violent when they come home are those who were 
excessively violent during the war (killing civilains for fun, for 
example), not the John McCain types who suffered long imprisonment 
under horrible conditions.

Jo Serenadust also said:
> I don't think that there is any canon evidence for 
> Sirius having a violent nature in his pre-Azkaban days...<

Um, no evidence at all, not unless you count tryng to feed a fellow 
classmate to a werewolf. 

I have to say, for two people with similar names here (Judyserenity 
and Jo Serenadust), we sure have different views of Sirius.  I guess 
you won't be happy unless I say Sirius is a nice guy.  OK, here goes. 
Sirius is a wonderful guy -- nay, a saint -- except when he's choking 
his godson, breaking a boy's leg, slashing everything in sight, 
feeding a classmate to a werewolf, or threatening to AK a former 
friend, which unfortunately is almost all we ever see him do.  There, 
is that better?  No, I didn't think so.   

-- Judy




From potter at jmaclabs.com  Mon Feb 11 23:23:53 2002
From: potter at jmaclabs.com (JM)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 15:23:53 -0800
Subject: Killing Curse(s)
Message-ID: <00de01c1b353$2d1b35e0$ce64a8c0@jmaclabs.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35044

AK seems to be about the most deadly curse, in that you use it and the victim dies. Period. 

But Pettigrew killed 12 in a single explosion curse that he used. Given the described effects of AK this was not it.

At 4th year Harry could: STUPEFY! ACCIO KNIFE! and Stab someone.

Relashio that Harry uses against the Grindylows could if sent at the same point (say head or heart) a few times probably be lethal.

Often we see wizards moving objects with their wands. Potatos, chairs, tables, etc. They tend to be moving with enough precision as well, what's to stop one from moving a boulder onto someone's head? This could be illustrated by knocking out the toll in SS/PS using Wingardium Leviosa.

Engorgement charms, a ton-tounge toffee was able to limit it's scope to a tongue and it was said that Duddley was nearly choking.

Reductor "blasts solid objects out of the way" I believe it was described. Generally it seems when a wizard is guarding someone their wand is over the person's heart. A heart is somewhat solid.

Shrinking or Reduction charms. All kinda of bits on a person that shrinking would cause death, heart, lungs, neck, arteries, etc.

Someone else mentioned wizards have a thing with conjuring ropes and these could easily be effective. Wizards, Dumbledore especially seem to be able to conjure quite a lot of very solid objects with relative ease. Manacles, chairs, ropes, tea sets, table cloths. These are usually moving when conjured it seems, or floating attatched at a distance from the wand. What about conjuring knives,  spears, clubs.


I think AK is not an unforgiveable curse because it kills, but because it is unblockable and can not be undone. The wizarding world's medical capabilities seem quite up to the challenge of rapidly dealing with wounds caused by blades (claws), clubs (bludgers), fire (dragon's breath). And if in a duel it seems that advanced wizards can block, dodge, or deflect any spell but the unforgiveable curses.

Given all of this, I propose that the Unforgiveable Curses are such because they can not be blocked, can not be deflected. Imperio can be fought, but most people take weeks or months to even begin to. Cruciatus doesn't even seem to be fightable. An unblockable curse greatly offsets the balance of power in an otherwise fair duel where one wizard is only going to lose because they made a mistake, failed to block or what not.

--
JM


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





From midwife34 at aol.com  Tue Feb 12 00:24:53 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:24:53 -0000
Subject: Snape, yet again!
In-Reply-To: <a47i8v+blam@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a49ncl+r675@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35045

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "greyshi" <greyshi at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "filo_roll" <filo_roll at y...> wrote:
> >  He was evil, or is he good? But he's so mean... :) I'm waiting 
> to see when the Unofficial Severus Snape Fan Club is formed or the 
> book "Dark Souled Wizards the the People Who Love Them" is 
published 
> (Soon to be on the Oprah Club Booklist). :) :)
> 
>WahAhAhaaahaa ! That was my laugh of the day , and i thank you:-)
I have sat here wondering all this time about the real partners of 
these women that are so fond of Snape.......How about "Dark Souled 
Wizards and the Women who Hate to Love Them"?

Jo Ellen 
> 




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Tue Feb 12 00:34:18 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:34:18 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Which Good Guy Might Crack? (WAS Weak vs. Unwilling, Fidelius, )
In-Reply-To: <a4937j+qtdo@eGroups.com>
References: <a4937j+qtdo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1521496855.20020211163418@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35046



Hi,

Monday, February 11, 2002, 10:40:51 AM, cindysphynx wrote:

>  Harry will never Crack, and Hermione will never 
> Crack, so I guess it has to be Ron.

I pondered this a bit more and have started to wonder why
people are so sure that Harry and Hermione would never
crack.

I can imagine quite a few situations where they would in
order to save somebody else's life.

They might not crack if just their own life is threatened
(but then, neither would Ron. I'm convinced he thought he'd
die in the chess game), but would they really be able to
watch somebody else torture or kill their
friends/family/mentor?

And what exactly do we mean by "crack" anyhow?

Give important information?
Go over to LV's side?

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





From Chelsea2162 at aol.com  Tue Feb 12 01:12:46 2002
From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 20:12:46 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's marks
Message-ID: <99.21a7c277.2999c60e@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35047

Porphyria writes:

<So is (Draco) he really a star, or do Crabbe and Goyle just make him look 
that 
way in comparison? Any Draco fans want to explain?>

     Being a Draco fan, I'd like to find out that his marks were good. In 
defense of him, I'd say that in the conversation he has with Lucius while in 
Knockturn Alley, was simply Lucius expressing his disgust that a "mudblood" 
had bested him on his exam marks. However, there really isn't any other 
mention of his marks in the canon, so I'm basically making a guess here. 
Howevre, I do think it'd be great if Harry was made a Gryffindor perfect, and 
Draco was made a Slytherin perfect. I think it would be funny for Harry to 
walk into the meeting thinking he'll be around all the best and brightest in 
Hogwarts - and then walk right into Draco :)

*Chelsea*




From greyshi at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 12 01:37:43 2002
From: greyshi at yahoo.com (greyshi)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 01:37:43 -0000
Subject: Snape, yet again!
In-Reply-To: <a49ncl+r675@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a49rl7+pq4g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35048

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" <midwife34 at a...> wrote:

> >WahAhAhaaahaa ! That was my laugh of the day , and i thank you:-)
> I have sat here wondering all this time about the real partners of 
> these women that are so fond of Snape.......How about "Dark Souled 
> Wizards and the Women who Hate to Love Them"?

Well, that would be the inevitable sequel. Of course the sales of 
these books would top the Best Seller list for years until, under 
pressure from the agents of Danielle Steele, a seperate "Dark Souled 
Wizards" Best Seller list is created. Despite the Dark Souled series' 
wide appeal across ages and record sales, it's the author's own fault 
for publishing something as a Dark Souled Wizards book and not a 
different genre... I mean a DSW book really can't be taken as serious 
literature, right? ;)

Greyshi





From Chelsea2162 at aol.com  Tue Feb 12 01:18:50 2002
From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 20:18:50 EST
Subject: Ron Going To The Dark Side
Message-ID: <110.d2af122.2999c77a@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35049

Cindysphynx wites:

>  Harry will never Crack, and Hermione will never 
> Crack, so I guess it has to be Ron.

   Ah, another person believing that Ron will, ahem, go over to the dark 
side. While it IS a possibility, I don't think that it will actually happen. 
I DO believe however, that Ron will be tempted, and someone with possibly try 
to lure him onto LV's side, but in the end, Ron will prove himself loyal to 
Harry, as he has done so many times before. A good example of this, is when 
Ron willingly sacrifices himself during the chess game in CoS. Only someone 
utterly loyal to his friends would do such a thing.

*Chelsea*





From siskiou at earthlink.net  Tue Feb 12 01:56:33 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:56:33 -0800
Subject: Prefects? was Re: [HPforGrownups] Draco's marks
In-Reply-To: <99.21a7c277.2999c60e@aol.com>
References: <99.21a7c277.2999c60e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <16026432554.20020211175633@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35050



Hi,

Monday, February 11, 2002, 5:12:46 PM, Chelsea2162 wrote:

> I think it would be funny for Harry
> to 
> walk into the meeting thinking he'll be around all the best and
> brightest in 
> Hogwarts - and then walk right into Draco :)

This brings up some questions:

Do we know how a prefect is chosen in the HP universe?

Does it have to do with getting good marks, or exemplary
behavior or a combination of both?

Something entirely else?

And who does the choosing?

(I'm midway through GoF, but will obviously have to read the
books many times more, before I remember all these things)

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





From brewpub44 at earthlink.net  Tue Feb 12 02:05:10 2002
From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 02:05:10 -0000
Subject: Harry's "Little Voice"
In-Reply-To: <a47f97+1006p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a49t8m+igq0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35051

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "roseswicegood" <rose at s...> wrote:
> The other idea which occured to me:  I hope this has not already 
been 
> covered, that Harry's birth had been prophesied, that Dumbledore 
and 
> others knew this baby would be special.  It seems V wasn't after 
Lily 
> and James at all, but Harry himself, perhaps aware of his special 
> gifts.  

I, for one, hope it is not some sort of prophecy. One thing I have 
always hated about fantasy fiction is the whole prophecy plot line. I 
have always related it to modern-day fortune-telling, a scam true and 
true. That's one thing I liked about PoA: the silliness of 
Trelawney's ramblings and the futility of prophecy. I really think 
JKR hates it as well, hence her harsh treatment of hte topic.

I also think prophecies cloud the central theme of the books, as 
outlines by Dumbledore's constant mantra: it is our own decisions 
that matter most. He uses it to discuss bloodlines or birthrights or 
inherited wealth, etc., but IMHO it also applies to prophecies. 
Prophecies inherently preclude freedom of self-determination, that 
most important of freedoms.

So how could JKR solve the problem you brought up, the main reason LV 
wanted to kill Harry? Hmm, a tough one. I would like to see JKR 
explain it in a totally different way. I just had a brainstorm: at 
some point it was stated that Hogwarts has some sort of magic quill 
(?) that can detect when magic-capable children are born. These names 
are logged in a book, and the children are contacted in ten years. If 
this is truly the case, perhaps the quill detected that Harry wasn't 
just magic-capable, but was the most gifted child to have been born 
since LV or DD themselves. And if, as others have speculated on this 
messageboard, LV manages to use Nagini to suck power from wizards to 
extend his life or give him power, then LV would try to take the 
child and feed him to Nagini instead, and gain a LOT of power!

But his attempt to use the AK curse sort of throws a wrench in that 
idea, but perhaps there is something similar at work here. 

In any event, I prefer very, very smart people learning things that, 
to us lesser mortals, looks like "prophecy" but is simply researching 
and predicting outcomes based on facts.

A Barkeep in Diagon Alley




From fiatincantatum at attbi.com  Tue Feb 12 02:19:05 2002
From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 21:19:05 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione's Imminent Crisis
In-Reply-To: <a48iee+mn10@eGroups.com>
References: <003001c1b2fa$48c4a6e0$0200a8c0@Nshare>
Message-ID: <3C683549.593.7494537@localhost>

No: HPFGUIDX 35052

On 11 Feb 2002 at 13:54, ssk7882 wrote:

> > Either when one of her two pals starts dating seriously, and she is 
> > no longer _the_ Girl in their lives ("What? You told _her_ 
> > that...and not me?") or when she's faced for the first time in her 
> > life with real, serious competition in the academic line.
> 
> Ooooooh!  I hope it's the latter.  Seriously, I'd love to see that 
> plotline.

Hey, if Harry takes up with Cho (in any capacity closer than the previous books 
have shown), Hermione is all set to have a Serious Self Esteem Crisis ... 
here's someone who's smart (Ravenclaw, remember?), cute, popular, has Harry's 
eye (or whatever) AND plays a dynamite game of Quidditch.  And she's *nice*, 
which makes it even worse, and everyone feels sorry for her because of Cedric.

Lots of potential there for havoc and mayhem.  Bring it on!



  
-- 
Fiat Incantatum 
fiatincantatum at attbi.com

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




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Tue Feb 12 02:56:09 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 02:56:09 -0000
Subject: Banking theory: Usury and a trimetalic money system
In-Reply-To: <a4865k+ctba@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4a089+dsth@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35053

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
> > In Book 1, Hagrid explains Wizard Money to Harry as follows, "The 
> > gold ones are Galleons. Seventeen silver Sickles to a Galleon and 
> > twenty-nine Knuts to a Sickle, it's easy enough." 

These values may "float" against each other, and vary over time. 
Gresham's Law must drive the Goblins nuts.

> > I can accept a bronze penny and a silver 43-cent coin (probably 
> > silver clad or colored like a quarter or half-dollar) but a gold
coin 
> > worth $7? At present a 1/10 oz gold coin, barely the size of a
nickel 
> > sells for $45. Is a Galleon the size of a dime? Or is it gold
clad 
> > like the Sacajawea dollar?

Gold may be more abundant in the Wizard World; therefore having
less purchasing power. I've been told that an ounce of gold will
buy a good suit for a man, and that this has been true for as long
as there have been suits.  But that's the Muggle world.

> I always assumed that "gold coins" are adultered in some way (maybe 
> electron: silver and gold), or maybe even just golden, with the
real 
> value stablished by the goverment at more than their intrinsic
value 
> and less than their fabrication cost (basically, like in the muggle 
> world)

I think they may have mixed something in to make the coins more 
durable.

> > Galleons would have to be worth more if only for the fact that in 
> > Chamber of Secrets the Weasleys buy the entire school supplies
for 4 
> > students for "a very small pile of sickles and just one gold
galleon."
> > 
Again, a difference not only in the local value of precious metals,
but in the cost of producing the school supplies.
> 

> Banking in the middle ages...Whatever the reasons, 
> banking in the middle ages was mainly for safe-keeping, at a rate
(they 
> took some of your money in exchange for keeping it safe).

The "Safe Deposit Box" service of modern banks.  I assume the 
Goblins charged rent on the vaults.
> 
> On the other hand, we can also assume that Gringotts works like a 
> modern bank. It still presents quite a lot of problems: ... and the
Weasleys had to go to 
> London to get their money. 

In Diagon Alley, where the main branch was close to places to 
spend the money. We know there is a branch in Egypt, where the 
Goblins are trying to recover treasure from cursed tombs.
> 
> Now for the interesting part: wages. There is no indication about
how 
> people are paid in the wizard world, but I've lately had the
feeling 
> that you're not paid monthly into your bank account, but (as was
the 
> norm in the middle ages), weekly and "on hand", or even dayly.

Daily for laborers, is my guess; Probably yearly for Hogwarts
faculty. Magical services, such as casting or removing curses, 
divination, etc., probably at the time the service is rendered.

>When they arrive, they get ... Arthur 
> gets from the MoM (hopefully someplace safe from the twins).

So Gringott's doesn't lend money deposited with them. That is usury
and, as you said, they just keep the "deposited" money in vaults for a
price.  What they do with the procedes from the vault rentals and 
treasure "recovered" from the Egyptian tombs is anybody's guess.
The Weasleys seem not to be in debt; probably because there is no
consummer credit.  

Money-lending and credit would be a nightmare in a magical world. 
Interest as we know it is based partly on likelyhood of repayment. 
In Roman times, interest rates got up to fifty percent when 
financing sea voyages. The debt was written off if the ship was lost,
so part of the interest was really a form of underwriting.  
Dependable Divination would help, but repayment would be hard 
to predict.

Tex





From tabouli at unite.com.au  Tue Feb 12 03:08:59 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 14:08:59 +1100
Subject: Lucius taking over, Lupin/Sirius colouring, FLIRTIAC
Message-ID: <002601c1b373$8552eda0$2a0adccb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35054

Eileen:
> Lucius didn't want Voldemort back at all, imho. After all, how would 
Voldemort look at a party? Lucius was living the good life, chumming 
it up with Fudge, donating to worthy causes, and suddenly, Voldie's 
come back, and wants to go all Snidely Whiplash. I'm looking to Lucius 
to betray Voldie when the time comes, and can't see why Voldemort 
isn't expecting it. Much as I hated Voldemort, I'm secretly hoping 
that the plan backfires on Lucius.<

Yes indeed.  Lucius is a snobbish, dandified society noble if ever I saw one.  A veritable Sloane.  All the same, what with Voldemort's descent into cartoon villain land, I'm frankly all in favour of Lucius taking over the Reins Of Darkness.  He has much more panache and credibility than Snake-Man.  Plus, we have his son at school with Harry, to make things even more interesting.  What would happen?

Then again, would Lucius want to rule the world?  (What do people think?)  I wonder if Lucius has had life too easy to build up the sort of vicious, ruthless ambition he'd need to drive him to such lengths.  Tom Riddle was fuelled by hatred of his Muggle father and orphanage; what would fuel Lucius?  A disdain for Mudbloods?  Ha.

Amy Z:
Catlady wrote of Lupin's eyes:
>>(I say they're blue, canon doesn't specify)
>
>Leaving us each to muse in perfect freedom.  (I usually see gray.  Maybe 
>light brown.)

I've always seen Lupin and Sirius' colouring reflecting their temperaments.  Lupin, with his mild, calm nature, should have a mild, calm colouring and appearance.  Pale and slightly waxen skin, light brown, prematurely greying hair on the thin and straight side (not balding, just not thick), small to medium in height and slender, clean-shaven, eyes a mild brown or grey.  Fragile looking but with unexpected strength when put to the test.  Looking young from a distance but older and older as the viewer approaches.  A stalwart man of careful movements and a quiet but resonant voice.

Sirius, OTOH, with his fiery, tempestuous nature, should be a man of fiery, tempestuous contrast in his appearance (Viggo who played Aragorn is the right type).  Thick, springy black hair, blazing blue eyes, light olive skin, heavy brows, medium to tall and muscular.  A passionate man of expansive, dramatic movements and  a loud, expressive voice.

Elkins:
> Outlandish?  Subversive?  Nonsense!  FLIRTIAC is *overwhelmingly* 
implied by canon.  Indeed, were I ever to abandon the liminal 
pleasures of the shoreline for the absolutism of the wide-open sea, 
FLIRTIAC would be my vessel of choice. <

At last!  (Tabouli dabs at happy tears).  Spurned and smiled at indulgently for all these months, FLIRTIAC finally has a genuine supporter!  I agree that there's got to be something in it myself, but I have my hands full of LOLLIPOPS and rarely have the time to sneak into the FLIRTIAC dinghy and polish the oars.  Maybe I just have this conviction that anti-social nasty people are produced by misfortune in love!  (although when I consider my own eternal misfortunes in this domain, I get a little worried by this...).

I want to know what happened to Mr Norris. I want to know why Mrs Norris (apparently a cat) is such a crafty, baleful ally of Filch's, and why she shows up on the Marauders' Map, and why she's the only creature that Filch seems to call "my sweet" and care for enough to stroke and cry over when he thinks she's dead (instead of plot to torture).  I'm sure that Filch being such an anguished Squib and so determined to learn how to do magic must have some significance.  Could the cat shape be a curse Mr Norris put on his cheating wife, which he maliciously set up so that it could only be broken by Filch himself?



Koinonia:
> I just like Snape much better and I'm hoping 
for something better than unrequited love making Snape turn into a DE.<

(Tabouli, suspecting that most listmembers are by now well and truly tired of her voluminous defences of her favorite ship, flourishes her last two LOLLIPOPS)

But it's NOT "just" unrequited love, as I keep on trying to tell you!!  LOLLIPOPS does *NOT* say that Snape is a weak mushball with nothing but a pathetic unrequited crush behind the wheel!

It's an abusive childhood making him bitter and vengeful, it's being victimised in high school, it's being sorted into Slytherin and feeling alienated from the Good Side, it's joining the DEs and building up to a moral crisis, it's feeling marginalised and betrayed and self-loathing and jealousy, etc.etc.etc.!!!  There are a *LOT* of other things besides catalyst Lily in the LOLLIPOPS equation, as I see it; the theory is dense and complex and takes almost everything in the books about Snape and his schoolmates into account.

(Tabouli subsides, heaving and with eyes glittering)


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




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Tue Feb 12 03:09:55 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 03:09:55 -0000
Subject: Harry's "Little Voice"
In-Reply-To: <a49t8m+igq0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4a123+aput@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35055

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "brewpub44" <brewpub44 at e...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "roseswicegood" <rose at s...> wrote:

> Prophecies inherently preclude freedom of self-determination, that 
> most important of freedoms.
> 
This could get us OT into a theological discussion if we are not
_very_ carefull.  With that in mind, I'll say that I do not think 
prediction precludes freedom.  Even if you know what my decision
will be, I am still free to decide. Granted, this is hard for some folks 
to take, or even to understand. But I do think it is the case. My 
choices are free, even if you know what they will be.

Tex, who is up past bedtime.





From heidi.h.tandy.c92 at alumni.upenn.edu  Tue Feb 12 03:11:46 2002
From: heidi.h.tandy.c92 at alumni.upenn.edu (heidi.h.tandy.c92 at alumni.upenn.edu)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 22:11:46 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron Going To The Dark Side
Message-ID: <185.3712f40.2999e1f2@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35056

In a message dated 2/11/2002 8:52:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Chelsea2162 at aol.com writes:


> Ah, another person believing that Ron will, ahem, go over to the dark 
> side. While it IS a possibility, I don't think that it will actually 
> happen. 
> I DO believe however, that Ron will be tempted, and someone with possibly 
> try 
> to lure him onto LV's side, but in the end, Ron will prove himself loyal to 
> 
> Harry, as he has done so many times before. A good example of this, is when 
> 
> Ron willingly sacrifices himself during the chess game in CoS. Only someone 
> 
> utterly loyal to his friends would do such a thing.

I am not sure that Ron is permanently stuck on the Side of the Good because 
of something he did when he was 12 (Ron's birthday is March 1, according to a 
JKR chat). I am sure that Wormtail would've sacrificed himself for his 
friends at 11 or 12 too - perhaps he did and that's why James trusted him 
wiht his life - but that doesn't protect him for all eternity. People grow 
from 12 to 18, 19, and beyond, and their personalities go through fundamental 
changes - and some that are less material. If you asked someone who just 
finished Book 1 whether Ron would ever stop speaking to Harry for about a 
month, they would laugh at you. They'd also laugh at the idea that Ron's pet 
rat is an evil wizard. But both of those are canon - they're facts in JKR's 
universe. I worry that Ron is either going to do something very damaging to 
Harry (and Hermione, too) or that he's already evil, having been corrupted 
somehow by the influence of his rat. I used to love that kid - but in PoA his 
actions regarding Hermione made me jittery, and I still read parts of GoF, 
especially the one where he is glad that he made Hermione cry at the Yule 
Ball*, and I cringe away from him.


* I don't really see how the post-Yule Ball argument can ever be read as 
saying that Hermione was suggesting that ROn ask her out some time. He'd made 
her *cry* a few hours before - how can she foregive him so quickly?


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




From heidi.h.tandy.c92 at alumni.upenn.edu  Tue Feb 12 03:40:13 2002
From: heidi.h.tandy.c92 at alumni.upenn.edu (heidi.h.tandy.c92 at alumni.upenn.edu)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 22:40:13 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's marks
Message-ID: <a0.220235d2.2999e89d@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35057

In a message dated 2/11/2002 8:52:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Chelsea2162 at aol.com writes:


>  Being a Draco fan, I'd like to find out that his marks were good. In 
> defense of him, I'd say that in the conversation he has with Lucius while 
> in 
> Knockturn Alley, was simply Lucius expressing his disgust that a "mudblood" 
> 
> had bested him on his exam marks. However, there really isn't any other 
> mention of his marks in the canon, so I'm basically making a guess here. 
> 

I agree wtih Chelsea. Even before I developed affection/sympathy for his 
character (in writing a Draco-perspective fanfic, where I forced myself to 
see all the canon scenes through his eyes) I thought he was bright - that's 
the kind of comment a parent makes when very few kids have trounced their 
child in class. Otherwise, "shaming the family by being at the bottom of the 
class" would've likely been used. Also, I note that Lucius does not use the 
term "Mudblood" then - Draco uses it at the QUidditch pitch chapters later, 
but Lucius doesn't say it in the shop at all, IIRC

Other bits that I consider evidence for the theory that Draco's marks are at 
least in the same zone as Harry overall:
Harry doesn't say, "Crabbe, Goyle and even Malfoy..." when discussing who he 
was surprised about passing
Snape calls the class's attention to his potions and ingredient preparation, 
and I doubt he would do that if Draco's work wasn't at least something the 
rest of the class could emulate - giving a student good marks when they're 
not deserved is one thing - promoting that student in class is quite another.
He makes a few witty statements - the one about the skrewts is funny and 
actually completely "true" in a sarcastic way.  (btw - how does his sarcasm 
translate into other languages? And how do those of you who don't have 
sarcasm in your culture read that in English? Do you see it 
straightforwardly, or is the irony understandable?)


Also, just wanted to make a quick reminder about what Draco said on the train 
regarding Cedric - everything he said was true. He said it meanly, but he was 
also completely honest. The Dark Lord is back, he'll set his sights on 
"mudbloods and muggle-lovers" first, and Cedric was the first to be killed. 
Content - 10; context - zero. Also, he *did* stand up and toast Cedric at the 
farewell banquet, even though he didn't toast Harry (but IMHO, there are al
ready rumors flying, which Draco believes, or perhaps started with prodding 
from Lucius, that Harry somehow actively contributed to Cedric's death much 
in the same way that someone who starts a forrest fire and calls for help is 
hailed as a hero for summoning the aid) so even if he feels comfortable 
ragging him down in "private", in public he feels compelled to behave a 
certain way and give a certain glimmer of dignity for the situation. 

Ama wrote: 
> Draco? A victim of his parents' ideological
>inculcation? Sure, but he is also a teenager who is exposed to
>diversity and CHOOSES ignorance. He knows mudblood can scar someone
>deeply, even if he doesn't really understand why. And yet it's a
>weapon he likes using. 
Well, he's not exposed to much diversity in Slytherin house.    
I just went back to my post from October, where I said, 
I just found a post of mine from October, where I posted:
> You know, people keep saying that at Hogwarts, Draco should be 
exposed to
> different and positive ideas, but I just don't see it. Other than 
at the 
> 4th year leaving feast, Dumbledore never addresses the students on
> issues of bias and prejudice- not even 2nd year when muggle-borns 
are
> being petrified and the students are terrified. So where would Draco
> learn them from? In class? We haven't seen any class where ethics 
are
> taught. The Slytherin common-room? Not all those students' parents 
are
> Death Eaters- so do they debate blood purity issues? How would a
> student's opinions trump Lucius Malfoy's in Draco's eyes?
 
I still feel that way. Yes, in a way he's choosing not to look away from what 
Lucius has taught him, but I do think that his relationship with Snape will 
eventually be used to at least *give him* the option to choose. Whether he 
chooses wisely is yet to be seen. But he should at least have the option, 
somehow.

heidi
Follow Me to FictionAlley.org
Harry Potter Fanfics of all shapes, sizes and SHIPs
<A HREF="http://www.fictionalley.org/">http://www.fictionalley.org</A> 
    



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




From pennylin at swbell.net  Tue Feb 12 04:11:15 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 22:11:15 -0600
Subject: A Sirius Defense, Round 2 (WAS a Sirius Offense)
References: <a49liu+luj0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C6895E3.5000507@swbell.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35058

Hi --

judyserenity wrote:

> Penny  wrote:
>  >>> ... C'mon Snape-fans, you've got to concede that your man Snape
>  >>> really really lacks interpersonal skills hugely.<<<
> 
> And I replied:
>  >> Nope, not going to concede it. Remember, we are seeing things from
>  >> Harry's point of view, and Snape and Harry despise each other.... 
>  >> Snape knows how to interact with others when he feels like it. 
>  >> Remember how he was manipulating Fudge at the end of PoA?.
> 
> And Jo Serenadust replied:
>  > I think that what Snape is actually doing with Fudge would be
>  > classified as shamelessly sucking up, not actual interaction....<
> 
> Oh, Snape is *definitely* sucking up to Fudge in that scene! 
> Absolutely!  But, it takes good interpersonal skills to successfully
> suck-up, and Snape was doing great (Order of Merlin and all) until
> Sirius escaped and ruined it for him.

I think it might take a different degree of interpersonal skills to 
successfully suck-up to say... Dumbledore...or McGonagall ...than Fudge. 
  Simple *flattery* (NOT the same thing as interpersonal skills) would 
go a long way with Cornelius Fudge.  Sorry, Judy, but if that's the best 
example of Snape's interpersonal skills in action that you've got, 
well....  <g>  Seriously, I don't see that scene as any evidence that 
Snape is actually capable of a "give-and-take" *relationship* with 
another human being.  Sucking-up is, after all, a one-way form of 
interaction.  Absent Fudge's ability or inclination to give Snape 
something *more,* the "relationship" would end once the object of said 
sucking-up (the Order of Merlin in this case) was obtained.

I've argued the limitations of Harry's POV in other cases, so it would 
be intellectually dishonest of me to try & say that your argument about 
POV doesn't have merit.  <vbg>  However ... even though McGonagall is 
perceived by Harry as strict and not a person to be trifled with, he 
perceives well enough & early on that she is *fair* to the students 
under her charge.  He sees her strengths & her faults in other words. 
By contrast, he perceives Snape as someone not to be messed with as 
well....but the similarity with colleague McGonagall ends there. 
Reason?  Perhaps because Snape is patently *not* fair to the students 
under his charge.  My point is that while Harry's perceptions are 
definitely a factor in our understanding of Snape thus far, we see a 
multi-faceted McGonagall through his lens.  Why do we see the Snape that 
we see?  Harry seems to observe Snape quite alot, and yet .... we see no 
evidence whatsoever that Snape has *friendships* with the other 
professors, that he's capable of any real interaction with *anyone* in 
fact.


> 
> As far as I know, no one has theorized that there are different forms
> of PTSD, based on the type of experience that caused the trauma.  
> Actually, the theory is that there is a "generalized stress response"
> that can be triggered by many different kinds of trauma.  Witnessing
> violnce certainly can effect behavior, but I'd say it does so
> independently of PTSD.  As for Azkaban, JKR is very clear that it
> causes depression, not rage or uncontrollable aggression.

But, I don't believe that *Azkaban* is the triggering event for Sirius' 
PTSD.  I know Azkaban causes depression.  I don't argue that point. 
What I'm arguing is that Sirius was suffering PTSD *before* he landed up 
in Azkaban.  I think the trauma or "triggering event" for his PTSD 
happened on 31 Oct/1 Nov 1981 -- I think it was one of (or a combination 
of) the death of his closest friends, the Potters, the knowledge of his 
own inadvertent role in that occurrence &/or his confrontation with 
Pettigrew the following day.  So, escaping Azkaban does zip, zero, nada 
for his PTSD.  It's still there... in full-form... when the Shrieking 
Shack scene takes place.  Under my theory, we just didn't see him in any 
situations where the PTSD would show itself in GoF; I think he's still 
suffering from it & we'll see more of this in OOP.

  I'd say the
> research on Vietnam vets actually supports my view that PTSD causes
> aggression only in those already predisposed to it. The vets most
> likely to be violent when they come home are those who were
> excessively violent during the war (killing civilains for fun, for
> example), not the John McCain types who suffered long imprisonment
> under horrible conditions.

Actually my psychologist friend said that the Vietnam vet cases are hard 
to decipher fully because most of those vets are also engaging in 
substance abuse ... so it becomes difficult to pinpoint precisely what 
might be triggering spousal abuse & other violent behaviors.  I'll ask 
him about your above statement though.  What about vets who engaged in 
heavy military-related violence in the course of the war for example -- 
how would you class those guys (not the ones who engaged in senseless 
civilian-related violence ... which was, I believe, very limited but 
sensationalized)?

> 

> Sirius is a wonderful guy -- nay, a saint -- except when he's choking
> his godson, breaking a boy's leg, slashing everything in sight,
> feeding a classmate to a werewolf, or threatening to AK a former
> friend, which unfortunately is almost all we ever see him do.

Oh really?  That's all you've seen of Sirius?  I've seen a fair bit 
more.  How about:

1.  Risking his life to save Harry (that's the whole point of PoA IMHO)
2.  Writing a permission note so that Harry could join his classmates on 
outings to Hogsmeade ... and giving an owl to Ron (seems a fine way of 
"apologizing" for his broken leg, which Sirius was concerned about 
anyway though)
3. Writing concerned letters to his godson with parental, caring advice
4.  Leaving the safety of his tropical hiding place to live in a cave 
near Hogwarts, where he could be close to Harry
5.  Risking detection by having a fireside chat with Harry ("never mind 
me, how are you?" ... "Sirius looked at him, eyes full of concern..." 
"He had let Harry talk himself into silence without interruption...")
6.  Keeping in constant contact with Harry & Dumbledore (and possibly 
others like Lupin and the "old gang") ["nice try, Harry"]
7.  Demonstrating wisdom about *relationships* and humankind in his cave 
conversation with the Trio

"If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he 
treats his inferiors, not his equals" --  this is *hardly* the sort of 
observation that a Devil-may-care/self-centered/egotistical!Sirius would 
make.  This seems in direct contrast with the argument that Sirius is 
just a former "popular boy" who still doesn't take any care for his 
actions or who he might hurt.

He picks up on Ron's irritation ... "All right, I'll try you..." [i.e., 
sensitivity to others, open-minded]

"Should have spent a bit more time at home with his family, shouldn't 
he?  Ought to have left the office early once in a while ... got to know 
his own son."  -- Again, this is hardly the sort of observation one 
would expect from a self-centered Sirius.  This says loads to me about 
who Sirius is ...as well as who he might have been if the events of 
Halloween 1981 had never happened.  Values, principles ... he sounds to 
me as though he's got his head on straight where it counts.  :--)

He cautions them against sneaking out to see him ... but stresses that 
he wants them to keep in touch with him.

8.  The post-3rd Task scene in Dumbledore's office.  This speaks volumes 
for Sirius in my mind.  The description of how worried he'd been is 
...well.... intense IMO.  The fact that Dumbledore took care that he 
would be there for Harry ... that speaks volumes.  I can't imagine 
reading that scene & *not* thinking the world of Sirius.

IMHO, Sirius is "dead sexy."  But, he's dead sexy *because* of who he 
*is* ... not because he's good-looking.  In fact, his appearance in POA 
isn't exactly stellar from the descriptions ... and he's thin & living 
on rats during most of GoF.  No, I think the Sexy!Sirius image relates 
to Sirius as a caring person who's more than capable of engaging in & 
sustaining intense friendships & relationships with his fellow human 
beings.

Okay ... waiting for other Sirius fans to jump in & help me out here! 
Carole?  Monika?

Penny




From catlady at wicca.net  Tue Feb 12 05:04:10 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 05:04:10 -0000
Subject: Lucius / Curses /Resisting Imperius / Galleons / Prefects / Sirius Eye Color
Message-ID: <a4a7oa+aude@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35059

Eileen Lucky Kari wrote:

>  I'm looking to Lucius  to betray Voldie when the time comes, and 
> can't see why Voldemort isn't expecting it.

Voldemort dotes on Lucius: look at the affectionate way he speaks to 
him in the graveyard scene: teacher's pet. My original idea was that 
Voldemort was still Tom Riddle who had been raised by Muggles to be 
working-class and he is just utterly thrilled that he gets to hang 
out with a toff. Then I studied time-lines and got the idea that 
Lucius could be Riddle's godson (I call him Tom Riddle while he still 
looks human and Voldemort once his immortality spells have made him 
look like a snake monster, which I figure happened in 1968 or so and 
was his cue to start assembling Death Eaters and committing public 
atrocities), Lucius's utter degree of evil could be the result of 
Riddle having been his childhood influence...

Tabouli wrote:

> Then again, would Lucius want to rule the world? (What do people 
> think?) (SNIP) what would fuel Lucius? 

Living up to his family tradition of trying to rule the world.

jklb66 wrote:

> The AK is an unforgivable curse BECAUSE it kills someone,

We don't KNOW that. We don't know what makes a curse Unforgiveable, 
whether it is something about the effect of the curse (maybe because 
it is unblockable as JM potter suggested) or something about the 
method of casting the curse (maybe because it requires the caster to 
be in a mood of absolute calm certainty of not caring about human 
life, as I think someone suggested recently). 

We also don't know what makes Dark Arts dark -- btw are there any 
Dark spells other than curses?   

> The real question is, how was Harry going to kill Sirius? He 
> doesn't learn about AK until 4th year.

Levitate your enemy and drop him from a great height. Levitate a 
heavy object and drop it on him. Banish a sharp knife at his throat 
(remember, when they were practising Banishing pillows, there was one 
box they were aiming for?). Transfigure part of the wall of his aorta 
to tissue paper, when will promptly (and wetly) burst from the 
pressure of the blood and he will die of massive hemmorrhage.    

Rose Swicegood wrote of Harry resisting Imperius:

> What then is the voice that guides him? I say it's the great wizard
> Griffyndor, and Harry is somehow a throwback to the old wizard. 

I think that's a new idea (at, I don't remember having heard anyone 
else suggest it before) but I still prefer to believe that that voice 
was Lily's, that the last magic she did was not merely to save 
Harry's life, but also to leave her loving and guiding voice/image in 
his mind. Having an 'imaginary mum' (like imaginary friend, except 
not quite as imaginary) to comfort him in his cupboard under the 
stairs would definitely have helped him survive the Dursleys.

Unc Mark wrote:

> Galleons would have to be worth more [than five pounds] if only for
> the fact that in Chamber of Secrets the Weasleys buy the entire 
> school supplies for 4 students for "a very small pile of sickles
> and just one gold galleon." 

Not to mention seven Galleons for a wand, with a phoenix feather 
core, that might last a lifetime. I suppose Galleons are really 
somewhere in the $25 to $50 range in current Muggle money. I think 
Galleons were the 'foreign' coins 'the size of hubcaps' that the 
Muggle campground manager complained of in GoF, far different from 
'the size of a nickel', so they must be onl gold clad or maybe some 
weird alloy (the Sacajawea dollar is alloy-clad and turns brown with 
use). 

Suzanne siskiou wrote:

> Do we know how a prefect is chosen in the HP universe? Does it 
> have to do with getting good marks, or exemplary behavior or a 
> combination of both?

It can't REQUIRE exemplary behavior, because James was a prefect and 
his House Master (McGonagall) remembers him (affectionately) as a 
big-time troublemaker. Also, Slytherin House has to have prefects 
like the other Houses.

Tabouli wrote:

> Sirius, OTOH, with his fiery, tempestuous nature, should be a man
> of fiery, tempestuous contrast in his appearance (Viggo who played
> Aragorn is the right type).

I went to fan sites to check photoes: Viggo's eyes seem to be brown 
or amber; I like for Sirius to have amber eyes with his black hair. 





From djdwjt at aol.com  Tue Feb 12 05:19:13 2002
From: djdwjt at aol.com (elfundeb)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 05:19:13 -0000
Subject: Which Good Guy Might Crack? (WAS Weak vs. Unwilling, Fidelius, )
In-Reply-To: <a4937j+qtdo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4a8ki+ie85@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35060

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> Hmmm.  Which good character is most likely to Crack?

Eileen wrote:
> 
> > The other likely candidate for breaking under pressure might be 
> Percy. 
> > > 
I don't think Percy will crack.  When the chips are down, he is 
intensely loyal to his family.  For example, he rushes out to Ron 
when he is being dragged out of the water in the Second Task -- 
seemingly forgetting that he was there in an official capacity.  If 
his career was absolutely #1, I think he would have stayed at the 
judge's table.  In fact, I think it can be argued that a good deal of 
what underlies his earnestness in pursuit of academic and career 
goals is a deep need to win praise from his family -- Molly in 
particular.  That's not to say, however, that Percy won't face 
difficult choices when he realizes that his career will put him in 
conflict with his family.  I can see him showing blind loyalty to the 
MOM's official position, or sitting on the fence as long as he can, 
convinced that the MOM is right, but based on prior actions, I think 
betrayal is beyond him.  He's withstood the twins' endless and 
sometimes mean berating of him for years.  (Besides, my husband likes 
Percy, and I can't imagine him ever cracking.)

And while we're on the subject of insecure Weasleys, I don't think 
Ron will crack either, at least not in the spill-the-beans-under-
Cruciatus sense.  Based on his Shrieking Shack experience, where he 
withstood horrible pain and still managed to offer to die for Harry 
and try to protect his pet.  He may, however, be vulnerable to 
Imperius (Harry's ability to break Imperius seems to be 
extraordinary, based on the class' experience).  After all, he 
couldn't even shake Fleur's charms.  I speculate that JKR may have 
had him behave really badly in 
GoF to lead us to believe he could go bad, so we would believe he had 
betrayed Harry if Imperius is sprung on him.  Even in GoF, he patched 
up his quarrel with Harry as soon as he perceived that the Triwizard 
Tournament involved real danger to the champions. (Ok, I guess 
someone 
needs to send me my C.R.A.B. membership card.)
> 
And to finish off the Weasleys, I have come to the conclusion that 
Gred and Forge are vulnerable, and weren't put in the books solely 
for comic relief.  Why?  Unlike the other Weasleys, I somehow see 
that their greatest loyalty is not to the larger family but to each 
other.  Besides, they have a weakness for gambling (they gambled 
their entire savings on the World Cup) and they already have a 
relationship with the Ever So Evil Ludo Bagman.  Finally, we are told 
that most of their inventions are really dangerous, so they might 
make good munitions.  Can't you see their side business -- Weasley's 
Wizard Warheads?  The dark side definitely would want to get hold of 
such things.  They are ripe for blackmail. Imagine a few Ton-Tongue 
Toffees shoved down their throats. . . . (Yes, and LV will be finally 
defeated when his wand turns into a rubber chicken.)

Cindy:

> Would Hagrid Crack?  Yep.  Of course.  In a New York minute.  A few 
> weeks in Azkaban was about all Hagrid could handle.  

Hagrid doesn't need anything more than a tankard of mead to Crack.  
> 
Cindy again:

> Hermione will never 
> Crack.
> 
She certainly can keep a secret, but we haven't seen her in pain yet. 
And we don't know whether she could resist Imperius.  Maybe if she 
practices long enough . . . but my instinct says she's not a prime 
candidate for cracking.

> Unfortunately, it seems that McGonagall might have been written to 
> Crack at some critical moment.  She failed at one of her big jobs 
> (standing watch over Crouch Jr.), and I have to wonder if this is 
> supposed to suggest some form of yet-to-be-revealed weakness.
> 
She's definitely one to watch, though I don't like the Evil Woman 
implications.  She also has a soft spot where Harry and his friends 
are concerned (e.g., she let Harry and Ron visit Hermione against 
orders when she was Petrefied).  It seems really innocuous, but I can 
see her being hoodwinked into doing something really stupid on the 
pretense that it's for Harry, maybe by someone using Polyjuice Potion 
to impersonate Harry and ask for something.    

Lupin's another character who may have some weaknesses.  Though I 
think his feelings for Pettigrew will see him through any attempt to 
make him crack (and he's survived enough pain as a werewolf to help 
ward off any Cruciatus attempt), is anyone worried that he didn't 
have the guts to tell Dumbledore what he knew?  Can he be blackmailed 
into cracking or has he learned his lesson?

> Debbie (who realizes on rereading that she doesn't know the 
definition of Cracking, but believes she used the word "cracking" 
correctly)




From animalsbaby_1999 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 12 05:25:02 2002
From: animalsbaby_1999 at yahoo.com (animalsbaby_1999)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 05:25:02 -0000
Subject: "Love" of Lily---did it have to be love?
In-Reply-To: <01e501c1b2af$437d7180$b6c71bce@hppav>
Message-ID: <a4a8ve+fnch@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35061

A totally different reason why Snape hated James was not the James 
and Lilly love but let's be honest, why do Draco and Harry hate each 
other? The answer is "WHY NOT!"  If they didn't hate each other, 
they'd find other students to hate.  And if you pick some student to 
hate when you're 11 yrs old, you usually find a reason to hate them 
when your 15 also.   For Snape, it may not have been love of Lilly, 
while she was in love with James.  Do we even know that they (Snape 
and Lilly or James and Lilly) we're together in school???? And if so, 
according to who, Petunia or Dumbledore.  Were they really there to 
see when the love started? Probably not.

But I have another reason why Snape hated James, they came 
from "different backgrounds" (fullblood vs halfblood)and were in 
different houses, so why not dislike each other.  Maybe Snape never 
had any real friends, and he saw James, Lupin, Peter, and Sirius all 
running around being popular and he felt like he should have had that 
kind of friendships and popularity.  Does it really matter why James 
and Snape hated each other, it only matters (as of right now) that 
they did.  Do we really know any of these characters background??? 
NO.  The only one we have any true knowlegde of is Lilly, but that is 
through Petunia, so that is very unrealiable.  We know nothing about 
Snape and James, except that the two disliked each other and at some 
point Snape was a DE!  But does that mean we know anything about any 
of these characters? NO, we do not.  

Who's to say that if Lilly and James had lived, when Harry got to 
school (since Harry would not have been famous) Snape would have even 
spent longer than a second on Harry in class.  Once again, it seems 
that fame and popularity is Snape's reason behind his hate, because 
why would he hate Harry (according to Harry) as much if he 
wasn't "The boy who lived."  Plus we know that Snape believes in 
fame, he talks in SS/PS that he can teach his class to bottle it, 
along with other fun things you can do with Potions.  

I truly feel that if JKR wants us to know why Snape and James hate 
each other, she'll tell us, but until then we will think up all kinds 
of reasons, probably more and more insane than the last, but until 
then we have to accept, that according to others James and Snape 
hated each other, but does that mean it is true or if at school it 
was true and after school things changed, we know Snape changed his 
views on the DE's for some reason (once again, why? Who knows?) and 
we may not know things, maybe Snape was trying to help James and 
Lilly, maybe even protect them.  Maybe along with Dumbledore, he was 
working on ways to keep truly "GOOD" witches and wizards safe from 
LV.  Plus, if Dumbledore knows the future more than he lets on, 
because he sure seems to know what is going on day to day at 
Hogwarts, maybe he knew/knows that he had/has to keep the secret of 
Snape/Lilly/James of becoming friends later in life. Or, maybe 
Dumbledore may not have even known if these three came to some sort 
of understanding, we do know that Dumbledore did NOT know that Peter 
was the secretkeeper even years later, or he would have done more to 
protect Sirius.

Remember, we don't know everything, we only see what Harry tells us 
and the one person who does know everything, is not talking, but 
hopefully she's writing...... STILL WAITING, VERY MUCH WAITING, FOR 
OoP.

Side note...any ideas when it comes out?????????

Sorry to type so long.... but new ideas just kept coming.




From theennead at attbi.com  Tue Feb 12 05:40:11 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 05:40:11 -0000
Subject: Ambushes and a New Avery Theory
In-Reply-To: <a43nib+3lbc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4a9rr+5r1j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35062

I have a stunning and revolutionary new Avery theory to share with
you all!

But first, some ambushes.


--Much Ado About Ambushes--


Cindy wrote:

> Oh, you want me to speak as a List Elf instead of a Spinner Of 
> Wobbly Theories?

<corner of mouth twitching suspiciously>

No, not really.  I just wanted to see what you'd look like in an oven 
mitt.

I was also rather hoping for some Jar-Jar Binks-style dialogue, but 
now I suppose that I'll just have to die disappointed.

> Oh, my. This is just making me feel all squishy inside. Finally, 
> *someone* else (besides George, who I still don't fully trust) buys 
> on to the Ambush idea. ::dabs at eyes:: 

Good lord, woman.  Suck it up, won't you?  Think of your *reputation!*

I wouldn't trust that George guy as far as I could throw him, by the
way.  Every time I see him, he's changed his clothing, or his hair
style, or his glasses have new frames...  You ask me, he's still 
trying to find himself.  I wouldn't commit myself to anything until 
he's grown up a bit, if I were you.

> Elkins, can I offer you a few cheap trinkets that probably won't 
> give you a bad skin rash if you remember to take them off at night? 

Welllll...I don't know.  You're selling those things from off of the 
deck of that <supreme distaste> *ship* these days, aren't you?  

I'm not getting on board that thing.  You bring those trinkets of
yours down here onto the beach, then maybe we can talk about it.

> Actually, Dolohov is in my ambush as well, and I'm willing to let 
> Frank Longbottom have a bit of the glory. I will note for the 
> record, however, that I think there were three Death Eaters in the 
> ambush (Dolohov, Rosier and Wilkes). That makes my ambush *bigger.* 

<eyes Cindy reproachfully>

Well, really now, Cindy.  Was there ever any doubt that yours was 
bigger?

Dolohov, eh?  I suppose that makes sense, given Crouch's exchange with
Karkaroff in the Pensieve scene.  Any chance I could convince you to 
off Wilkes in an entirely separate scenario?  

See, (where's the canon, where's the...) Wilkes was probably in a 
different *cell,* right?  Because otherwise Karkaroff would have
named him at the Pensieve hearing, along with Rosier and Dolohov.  
The fact that he *didn't* name him leads me to believe that either 
Wilkes was already dead by the time of Karkaroff's arrest or that 
Wilkes and Karkaroff were in different "cells" of the DE 
organization, and so didn't really know each other.

Either way, you need a separate scenario to account for Wilkes' 
demise.

And besides, big ambushes make me nervous.

But look on the bright side.  This way, you can have *two* ambushes!
Smaller ones, yes, and perhaps a tad less Great-And-Bloody than
you like -- but *two* of them!  Or, if you prefer, you can take
one Small-But-Bloody-Ambush and one...oh, I don't know, Entrapment
Scenario Gone Terribly Wrong, say. or perhaps a Hit Wizard Sniping.
You can take your pick.

Or do you only like ambushes?


--Cindy's ambush theory--

> This is shades of Eric, in a way, but maybe not. 

Eric?  Is he a friend of George's?  I...Oh!  ERIC!  *That* Eric!
Yes, yes, all right.  Do go on.

<Moody's attempts to talk Rosier down go horribly awry, whereupon
Frank Longbottom single-handedly takes down three DEs, thus not
only ensuring his popularity, but also establishing beyond a shadow 
of a doubt his Toughness credentials>

Mmmmmm.  I rather like that.  It has the advantage of maintaining the
Alastor-Moody-Was-the-Most-Civilized-of-the-Aurors thing, while still
allowing Longbottom to be -- if slightly more trigger-happy and 
reckless than Moody -- still most decidedly *not* one of those Judge-
Dredd-On-Acid types.  Dolohov was taken alive, right?  So there you 
have it.  Judge Dredd would have wasted the guy.

You still need to replace Wilkes with somebody else, though.  
Perhaps, uh... <sound of flipping pages> Travers?  How 'bout Travers?

Of course, if it's Travers, then your ambush is a tad less Bloody, as
Travers would seem to have been taken alive.  But that would make 
Longbottom all the more *impressive,* wouldn't it?  (If somewhat less
dripping with DE blood.)

Much as I like Longbottom-takes-down-three-DEs-single-handed, though, 
I'm still going to keep on plumping for Rosier-dead-at-Moody's-hands,
because I like what it does to Snape's interactions with Crouch/Moody 
all through GoF.  Although, really, I suppose that if you gave Moody
Wilkes, you could get much the same effect.  You just wouldn't have
quite as much canonical suggestion to back it up.

> Longbottom, like Moody, is quite Tough.

<quiet satisfaction>

Was.

<sudden horrified look>

Oh my God.  I didn't really just say that out *loud,* did I?

Ahem.  Yes, well.  Sorry 'bout that.  But somebody recently levelled 
accusations of "the Longbottoms had it coming"-itis against me (at 
least, I *think* they were levelled against me, although they might 
have been levelled against Eric -- it was sort of hard to tell), and 
you *know* how suggestible I am to that sort of thing.

Take Avery, for example...


--Much Ado About Avery--


> Yes, Avery is a difficult case to sort out. Still such a blank 
> slate, and only three books to go. 

Right now I imagine he's hanging out in the Green Room, preening 
himself and bouncing excitedly in his chair and lording it over all 
of the other guys who spend their time down there -- you know, 
Mundungus Fletcher and Arabella Figg and the Longbottom family and 
that lot, all of whom are beginning to finger their wands and squint 
speculatively at him -- but he hasn't even noticed that yet, not our 
Avery, nope, he's still far too wound up, he's all smug and gloating 
and babbling uncontrollably: "*I* had an appearance.  *I* had a line 
of *dialogue!*  Seven whole *words!*  And Harry was *watching* me -- 
not even in a dream sequence or anything like that, no, in *real 
life!*  And the Dark Lord even *spoke* to me, he addressed me by 
*name,* he said, 'Avery,' he said, he...well, er, actually what 
happened there was that he, er, sort of, well, you know.  Tortured
me.  A bit.  Which wasn't really all that enjoyable, now that you 
mention it, I really can't say that I was all that terribly *keen* on 
that part, to tell you the truth, and...well, I *do* rather wish that 
I had been able to take that wretched mask off.  I mean, it's all 
rather *awkward,* isn't it, not even knowing what you look like?  And 
I still don't have a, well, a, you know.  A first name.  Not, at any 
rate, *yet.*  Not as *such.*  But!  Still!  I've had an 
*appearance!*  *And* a line of dialogue!"


<Elkins pauses for a moment to contemplate the notion of young 
Severus Snape forced to share living quarters for an entire seven 
years with *that* version of Avery, shudders, then shakes her head 
and moves on>


> Unlike Hagrid, I can't write Avery off as insufficiently Tough, 
> though. 

<tonelessly>  

You think that Avery's Tough.

<shakes head very slowly>

> Oh, sure, he doesn't have the good sense to keep his head down when 
> Voldemort is looking for an opportunity to polish his Crucio 
> skills.  Yes, he writhes and shrieks, but who wouldn't? 

Cedric Diggory, that's who.  Diggory just yells.  And gets right back 
up on his feet afterwards, too.  Ah, the resilience of youth!

Then, I don't suppose that Imperio'd Krum's Cruciatus was really all 
that powerful.

> What Avery needs is a compelling backstory. 

Well, I'm sure that JKR has one all worked out for him.  He *is* a 
terribly important character, after all.  I myself won't be at all 
surprised if Book Five proves to be all *about* Avery!


--Cindy's Avery Theory--

> No, Avery is and has been head of DMC since the Potters were 
> killed. 

He was head of a Ministry Department by the time he was twenty-one
years *old?*

I mean, we all know that Avery's a misunderstood genius and
everything, but don't you thknk that might be a little...much?

<Cindy then goes on to attribute Avery with all manner of marvellous 
things: recovering Voldemort's wand from Godric's Hollow, tampering 
with the evidence to ensure the success of Pettigrew's framing of 
Sirius Black, and so forth>

Wow.  Well, that theory *would* clear up a number of contentious plot
points, wouldn't it?

It has the drawback, though, that it drifts quite far away from my 
original premise that Avery Is Not All That Bad A Fellow, Really.  I 
mean, you've just made him a...well, a fairly seriously committed 
Death Eater, actually.  That just won't do at all.

Besides, I think that if Avery were heading the DMC, then he wouldn't
occupy nearly so low a rank in Sirius' evaluation of threat to Harry,
do you?  The head of a Ministry Department is obviously Dangerous, 
even if he is Not Tough.

> Now that things have settled down, Avery is leading a quiet life as 
> a middle-aged bureaucrat...

<shriek>

Middle-aged?  MIDDLE-AGED?

Cindy, if we assume that Avery is Snape's age, which I think is quite
strongly suggested by the text, then he is only around 35 years old!

And 35 is *not* middle-aged!  It is *not!*  THIRTY-FIVE IS NOT MIDDLE-
AGE!  THIRTY-FIVE IS THE PRIME OF LIFE!  

<Elkins takes a few deep breaths, trying not to contemplate her own 
mortality>

Besides, it's especially not middle-aged for wizards.  They, uh, live 
a long time.

> Yes, why does Avery become unhinged in the graveyard? After all, 
> Avery did nothing more or less than Lucius did....But maybe Avery's 
> behavior can be explained another way. 

What, you didn't like my "Avery Has Recanted Deep Down Inside and Has 
Been Leading a Virtuous and Muggle-Loving Life" theory?

That's okay.  I've got a new one, and this one doesn't even require 
that you accept Avery as virtuous or at all good.  This is a theory 
that allows him to be utter scum, although it also allows for a 
Virtuous Avery variant.  Okay?  Ready?

But first, a few words of explanation as to why it is clear that 
Avery really *is* an important character, and not merely my own 
personal cause.

<You there in the back!  Stop sniggering!  This is serious!>


--Why Avery Is Very Important, Really--

Okay.  It's quite clear to me that JKR *wants* us to notice Avery.  
She's obviously setting him up for some secondary villain duty in 
future books.  He alone of the named DEs in the graveyard scene is 
neither someone we have met before nor (as far as we know) the father 
of a student at Hogwarts.  Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle, Nott, MacNair...all 
these names at least ring bells.  We know Lucius; we've met MacNair; 
we know Crabbe and Goyle's kids; and we've at least heard the 
name 'Nott' in a Sorting Ceremony, and so know that he has a child in 
Harry's year at school.  Avery stands out as the notable exception.

Furthermore, JKR went out of her way to prime our curiosity about him
before we even got to graveyard.  In "Padfoot Returns" she gave us 
the intriguing notion of Snape's Old Gang, and then she went on, both 
in Padfoot and in Pensieve, to let us know what happened to Rosier, 
and to Wilkes, and to the Lestranges.  Avery, however, is strikingly 
omitted.  Furthermore, we are told that he is still 'at large.'  This 
is a set-up.  It's laying the groundwork so that when Voldemort 
addresses Avery by name in the graveyard sequence, we will prick up 
our proverbial ears.  We're meant to reach that line and say to 
ourselves: "Ah-hah!  *Avery!*"

And finally, she tortures him.  Torture's always an attention-
grabber, and it's often a sympathy engine as well.

So.  JKR *wants* us to notice Avery.  She wants him to be rooted in 
our minds.  And yet -- and this is an important point, so you there 
in the back: pay attention! -- she never actually shows us his 
*face.*  He is masked in the graveyard scene, and no hint is even 
given as to his overall body type.  We -- or, more to the point, 
*Harry* -- would be able to walk right past him on the street and not 
recognize him.

She also partially obscures his voice.  While he does have one line 
of dialogue, it is a histrionic plea for forgiveness screamed out in 
what appears to be a state of near-panic.  Thereafter, of course, all 
he can do is shriek and gasp.  Would Harry even recognize him from 
his normal speaking voice?  Quite likely not.  Unlike Nott, for 
example, who is given at least one hint of physical appearance 
("stooped") and whose voice is heard, Avery remains utterly 
camoflaged.

So I therefore predict, with the cheerful confidence of one who has no
actual money riding on any of this, that Avery *will* appear in some 
future volume -- very likely in Book Five -- and that it will be an 
important plot point that Harry Not Recognize Him.  Either he will be 
masquerading as someone else, or Harry will encounter him in whatever 
social roll Avery normally fills and be horrified when he first hears 
his name.

That's my prediction.  

(I also predict, by the way, that Ali Bashir's illegally-imported 
magical flying carpets will play some small but vital role in the 
plot of Book Five, and that a switcheroo with one of the twins' trick 
wands will save one of our Protagonists -- probably Harry -- from a 
sticky end at the hands of a Very Bad Wizard at some point in the 
story.)

(But I digress.)

Now...


--The New Avery Theory--

So.  Having established beyond an question of doubt that Avery really 
*is* a Very Important Character, and not merely my own strange little 
joke (I said *stop* that sniggering back there!  Do I have to ask you 
all to put your heads down on your desks?) I will go on to elaborate 
my most recent Avery theory.  I hope you were paying attention 
before, because some of this builds on earlier stuff.

Okay.  So we have Avery, whose most notable quality so far is his 
peculiar blend of seeming-irrelevancy and authorial emphasis.  We 
know his name, we've even heard his voice (albeit only screaming), 
but we don't actually know anything about him.  He hasn't actually 
*done* anything -- he's never even had a child mentioned at 
Hogwarts.  It's really all very odd, don't you think?

So where in Goblet of Fire do we find Avery's counterpart?  Where is 
his opposite number in the text?  What we are looking for here is a 
character who *is* of some importance or relevance, who *has* done 
something of some interest to the reader (and to Harry), and whose 
face we *have* seen -- but who nonetheless suffers from a mysterious 
and seemingly inexplicable anonymity. 

No, seriously.  Think about this for a minute.  Who have we seen who 
fits this description?  Who is it who has both a face and a role -- 
but no name?  Who is Avery's double?  Who is Avery's other half?

Are you with me here?

Yes!  That's right!  Avery was actually...

<dramatic chord>

...the Mysterious Fourth Man In The Pensieve Scene!


*This* was in fact the "trouble" that AVery "wormed his way out of" 
by claiming to have been acting under the Imperius Curse: his life-
sentence in Azkaban alongside his old friends the Lestranges and 
young Barty Crouch.  Yes, we've all been assuming that Avery never 
actually did any time -- but there's no reason that this must be so.  
Sirius does not, after all, say *when* Avery wormed his way out of 
trouble -- only that he did so.  And life in Azkaban certainly counts 
as "trouble," while wrangling a pardon after only a year or two 
served would still qualify as worming ones way out of it.  This would 
also explain why Sirius mentions Avery's name right after the 
Lestranges': they are linked in his mind by virtue of their common
crime, just as Rosier and Wilkes are linked by virtue of their common 
fate.

More to the point, though, this theory (which I hereby dub "The 
Fourth Man Theory") serves to explain why that mysterious fourth co-
defendent goes so suspiciously unnamed throughout all of GoF.  It is 
a set-up, you see, for the Great Shock Moment of Book Five, when it 
will be revealed that not only is newly-introduced Character X (who 
will have always struck Harry as vaguely familiar, but he will never 
quite be able to figure out why...) actually Death Eater Avery from 
the graveyard scene of the last book, but that he is *also* one of 
those mad fiends who tortured the poor Longbottoms.  O, horribile 
dictu!

But how (I hear you all cry), how, how, *how,* how could *any* of 
those four prisoners *ever* have wrangled a pardon after that trial, 
with its hissing mob, and Crouch's stirring denunciation, and all the 
rest of it?  How could the public mood ever have *allowed* for such a 
thing?

Well, you have to remember that not long after that trial, the public 
mood began to change.  According to Sirius, Crouch's popularity went 
into a sharp decline not long after his son's trial and subsequent 
death: people were beginning to think poorly of his excesses and 
those of his Aurors in the last years of the war.  And Crouch 
himself, as we know, got shunted off into the Department of 
International Magical Cooperation -- thus leaving his position 
open for a successor, who would likely have been eager to distance 
himself from Crouch's legacy.

So let us say that a year or two after the trial, the Wizarding 
World's Bleeding Hearts (HA!) all began to crawl out from the 
woodwork, calling for the reexamination of some of Crouch's more 
dubious old cases, the ones in which justice might not really have 
been served.  Crouch has by now been shunted off into the Department
of International Magical Cooperation, and the person who has replaced 
him sees in this an excellent opportunity to ensure his own political 
reputation by taking a second look at some of Crouch's more 
notoriously shaky old cases.  So...

Eh?  What's that?  Oh.  Why didn't Sirius Black's case ever get 
reexamined, you ask?  Well...um...

<thinks hard>

Because Bleeding Hearts don't *like* Sirius Black, that's why.  They 
all think he's a brute; he reminds far too many of them of those 
popular kids who used to pick on them in school.  And besides, 
Dumbledore himself had never expressed any doubts about Black's 
guilt -- and as everybody knows, Albus Dumbledore Is Never Wrong 
About Anything.  <snort>

Dumbledore *did,* however, seem to have held some doubts as to the 
actual guilt of Avery and young Crouch (who unlike the Lestranges 
didn't shoot their mouths off at their trial, but instead continued 
to insist upon their innocence), and this fact emboldens the Bleeding 
Hearts.  They pressure Crouch's successor to allow for a retrial.  
It's too late for young Crouch by that time -- he's already "died" in 
prison <snicker> -- but Avery is still there, spending his days 
rocking back and forth, moaning, banging his head hard against the 
walls, screaming in his sleep, and all of that sort of thing.  He 
cuts a truly pitiful figure at his trial, which sways the court's 
sympathy, and this time he manages to pull off the Imperius defense --
his claim, let us say, is that the Dead Sexy Mrs. Lestrange was 
controlling his mind.  He is granted an official pardon and allowed 
to walk free.

Traumatized, twitchy, and Having Had Quite Enough Of *That*, Thank 
You Very Much, Avery then goes home to live in his mother's basement, 
where he takes up coin-collecting.  He never pursues a visible or 
prestigious career, stays as far away from the public eye as he can 
manage, and whenever he gets an owl from one of his old DE comrades, 
scrawls "Return To Sender" hastily onto the outside of the envelope 
and owls it right back unopened.

More to the point, he never makes the slightest effort to seek out 
Voldemort.  Like I said, Avery Has Had Enough.

And *this* is the reason that Avery is in such a nervous state when 
he gets to the graveyard.  Not only because his stint in Azkaban has 
left him pretty twitchy to begin with, but also because he knows that 
his degree of infidelity is *not* really analogous to Lucius 
Malfoy's, or to that of any of the other acquitted DEs.  All those 
other guys just wanted to be on the winning side, and the Big V can 
understand that -- he was in House Slytherin himself, after all; he 
knows how that works -- and besides, they can all defend themselves
by claiming that they just didn't know *how* to go about looking for 
Voldemort: they had no leads, they had no clues, they had no ideas, 
"had there been any sign of you, any whisper of your whereabouts...," 
and all of that.  

Avery, on the other hand, was in with the Lestranges.  He *did* have 
some leads, and he *could* have continued to try to pursue them on his
own, just as young Crouch did before Daddy Imperio'ed him.  But he 
chose not to, and for no better reason than Not Being Able To Take 
His Licks Like A Man.  

Voldemort just *hates* that.  Like Cindy, he values Toughness.

Also, Avery begged off on the claim that he was Imperio'ed by a 
*peer.*  Not by the Great Dark Wizard of the Ages, not even by a much 
older and more experienced wizard, but by a *peer.*  And even worse, 
by a *girl* peer.  

And Voldemort hates that sort of thing even more.  He doesn't really 
have very much respect for women -- which is why there are so few 
female Death Eaters -- so to his way of thinking, that is just plain 
*despicable.*

So that's my Fourth Man theory.  It explains Avery's hysteria in the 
graveyard. It explains the otherwise inexlicable anonymity of that 
mysterious fourth co-defendent.  And it also explains Voldemort's 
utter lack of mention of the Fourth Man during the graveyard scene.  
He's overflowing with praise for Crouch, and for the Lestranges, and 
yet he never even mentions the fourth guy?  Even if the fourth man 
had died in Azkaban, wouldn't you think that V would have mentioned 
him by name?  "And so-and-so, who was loyal, who died a martyr's 
death in my service, blah-blah-blah..."

Well, Fourth Man explains why Voldemort says nothing of the sort.  
It's because the Fourth Man is Avery, who is right there grovelling 
at his feet already, and because Voldemort has already made it 
perfectly clear what he thinks of him: namely, that his performance 
was shoddy beyond any hope of forgiveness, and that he now owes 
thirteen years of faithful service to make up for it.

Fourth Man also offers the possibility of a <shudder> SHIP, for those 
who like that sort of thing.  One can, for example, contemplate the 
possibility that Avery was hopelessly in love with the Dead Sexy Mrs. 
Lestrange, and that he remained devoted to her even after she threw 
him over for his classmate and romantic rival.  Tragic, hankie-worthy 
speculation possibilities abound.

Really, the only problem that I can see with Fourth Man is that it 
does absolutely nothing to support the notion that Avery Is Not All 
That Bad A Fellow, Really.

In fact, it kind of makes him even more loathsome than he was back 
when he was just a grovelling toady, doesn't it?

<long silence>

Oops.

Wait...wait...I can *do* this.

<even longer silence>  

Okay.  How's this?  Avery really *was* under Imperius.  He's a 
hopelessly weak-willed but Not All That Bad Really a fellow, 
who...uh...who only really became a DE in the first place out of his 
desire to impress the Dead Sexy Future Mrs. Lestrange.  Alas, once 
within the ranks, he found that murder and torture made him sick.  
All of the other guys made fun of him, and there seemed a good chance 
that the Dark Lord might simply have him killed.  So...uh, the Dead 
Sexy Mrs. Lestrange took, uh, pity on her oh-so-pathetic admirer and 
placed him under the Imperius to help guide him safely through the 
ickier aspects of the lifestyle he had so unwisely chosen for himself.

<short pause>  

No.  No, all right.  I'm not buying the Dead Sexy Mrs. Lestrange as 
the pitying type either.  Well, okay then.  She just found him 
amusing.  It entertained her to keep him around as a pet, and she 
particularly enjoyed forcing him to commit terrible atrocities that 
she knew he found horrifying and distressing.  That seems rather more 
in character for her, really.

There.  Now we have an alternate version of Fourth Man that maintains
the whole "Avery Is Weak But Not Really Evil To the Core" theory.  We 
call this one "Redeemable Fourth Man."

You pays your money, and you takes your choice.


Cindy wrote:

> Really, all Avery needed in the graveyard was a good . . . lawyer. 
> Someone to say, Avery, don't answer that question, and whatever you 
> do, don't admit guilt.

Unfortunately, it was impossible for him to bring his advocate along 
with him to the graveyard.  And while he had indeed been advised 
against the admission of guilt back at the office, without the 
support and comfort of that smooth-tongued fellow constantly leaning 
over to whisper in his ear, he just couldn't handle the pressure.

> Uh, would it be a fair assumption that S.Y.C.O.P.H.A.N.T.S. members 
> are not Tough? 

Er...not as a general *rule,* no.  But some are.  In fact, a few of 
our members have even been known to do things like sever their own 
body parts, although they are generally only able to manage such 
feats of Toughness when the plot demands it.

As I've said before, though, there really is a great deal of 
diversity within our ranks.  We are, after all, an umbrella 
organization of sorts for those members of the fictive world who are 
what we like to call, er..."reader sympathy challenged."  So while it 
is indeed true that our Abject Neurotics are, almost without 
exception, Not Tough, quite a number of our Yes-Men are very Tough 
Indeed.  Young Crabbe and Goyle, for example, currently show every 
sign of growing up to be Reasonably Tough Yes-Men.

It is a sad truth, however, that our Toughest members are also often 
our very least articulate.  As a result, they do often find 
themselves shockingly marginalized, even within the ranks of our own 
organization.  We hope to address this problem in the future.

> Do they watch a great deal of daytime television and read a lot of 
> self-help books while they eat pint after pint of high-fat ice
> cream? :-) 

Well, many of our members currently hold 24/7 positions as Minions to 
various Evil Overlords, which doesn't leave them very much time at all
for daytime television and the like.  Really, you know, it's very hard
work being a SYCOPHANT.  It takes a lot of time, and a lot of mental
and physical energy...it can be *draining,* you know, it really can 
be... and all too often it leaves you with nothing left over for such 
frivolities as self-help books and the like.

No, at the end of the day, most of our members really just want 
nothing more than to go home and take their anti-anxiety medications, 
and their sedatives, and their anti-depressants, and their antacids, 
and their many *many* pain-relievers, and then go to bed, secure in 
the comforting knowledge that Tomorrow Is Another Day -- And Quite 
Likely To Be Your Last.

And as for the ice cream...well, minions rarely get very much of 
that.  Evil Overlords are *notorious* for bogarting the high-fat ice 
cream.

Damn them.


-- Elkins




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Tue Feb 12 05:40:18 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 05:40:18 -0000
Subject: A Sirius Offense, Round 2 (WAS a Sirius Defense, Round 2)
In-Reply-To: <3C6895E3.5000507@swbell.net>
Message-ID: <a4a9s3+5v7s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35063

On the topic of Snape's interpersonal skills, I pointed out that we 
only see Snape from Harry's point of view.  Penny responded:
> ... while Harry's perceptions are 
> definitely a factor in our understanding of Snape thus far, we see a 
> multi-faceted McGonagall through his lens....

In other words, I believe Penny is saying that Harry is fair is his 
perceptions of other strict teachers like McGonagall, so why should we 
think he is all that biased when observing Snape?  I actually have a 
lot to say on the topic, but not tonight.  It deserves its own thread. 


OK, on to Sirius.  

Penny said:
> But, I don't believe that *Azkaban* is the triggering event for 
> Sirius' PTSD. ... I think the trauma or "triggering event" for his
> PTSD happened on 31 Oct/1 Nov 1981< 

I think the death of his friends and witnessing the attack by 
Pettigrew could trigger PTSD, yes.  But, Jo Serenadust had referred 
specifically to his time in Azkaban, and that was what I was 
responding to.  I also just don't think that the events of 
Holloween 1981 would be likely to make him violent.

Penny asked:
> What about vets who engaged in 
> heavy military-related violence in the course of the war for example 
> how would you class those guys (not the ones who engaged in 
> senseless civilian-related violence ... which was, I believe, very 
> limited but sensationalized)?

Well, like I said, I'm not an expert on PTSD.  I do know that the 
more combat a veteran saw, the more likely he is to develop PTSD.  
However, since most people with PTSD aren't violent, that doesn't tell 
us whether those same vets are more likely than other to be violent.  
I'll be interested to hear what your friend has to say. 

I don't think we know for sure how much violence there was by our 
forces in Vietnam against civilians, but I do know for sure it's more 
than I ever want our soldiers to do again. 

I said:
> > Sirius is a wonderful guy -- nay, a saint -- except when he's 
> > choking
> > his godson, breaking a boy's leg, slashing everything in sight,
> > feeding a classmate to a werewolf, or threatening to AK a former
> > friend, which unfortunately is almost all we ever see him do.

Penny listed many other, better things Sirius has done:
> 1.  Risking his life to save Harry...
> 2.  Writing a permission note ... and giving an owl to Ron (seems a 
> 3.  Writing concerned letters to his godson...
> 4.  Leaving the safety of his tropical hiding place...
> 5.  Risking detection by having a fireside chat with Harry ...
> 6.  Keeping in constant contact with Harry & Dumbledore...
> 7.  Demonstrating wisdom ...in his cave conversation with the Trio
> 8.  The post-3rd Task scene in Dumbledore's office. 

Well, I admit my quote was exaggerated for dramatic effect.  However, 
I also believe that actions speak louder than words.  (This is one of 
the reasons I think Snape isn't so bad; he says nasty things, but what 
we've actually seen him *do* isn't so bad.)  Ok, so Sirius answers his 
mail and makes some wise comments, but I don't see that as such a big 
deal.  Heck, for all we know, Snape has lots of penpals, whom he 
answers promptly, with sage advice.  Would that make you like him? 

Now, I will grant that Sirius shows real concern for Harry at various 
points (like, when he isn't choking him), as evidenced by your points 
1, 4, and 5.  However, as I've said before, one thing that bothers me 
about Sirius is that he acts as if only his friends count, and other 
people don't. 

Again, as I've said before, part of the problem is that Sirius (and 
several other characters) are written inconsistently.  The concerned 
godfather of GoF is a far cry from the angry knife-wielder of PoA.  
So, whether you like Sirius or not depends on which Sirius you think 
is the "real" one. 

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree about Sirius.  I 
feel like the conversation is going around in circles; I've made most 
of the points here before.  I'm not liking Sirius any better; in fact, 
the whole conversation has brought up things I dislike about Sirius, 
that I had completely forgot about.

Penny, I get the feeling that it really matters to you whether people 
like Sirius or not.  Why?

-- Judy




From djdwjt at aol.com  Tue Feb 12 06:08:50 2002
From: djdwjt at aol.com (elfundeb)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 06:08:50 -0000
Subject: Ginny, Riddle's Diary and Cracking
Message-ID: <a4abhi+mrts@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35064

Something that has always bothered me about Ginny is the fact that 
after recovering Riddle's diary from Harry, instead of destroying it 
she opens it up again, leading to 2 more Petrefications and her own 
near-death.  How could anyone be so dumb?  But I was flipping through 
CoS and noticed that Harry, when he had the diary in his possession, 
spent a lot of time flipping through the pages trying to figure it 
out, and even carried it around with him in his backpack though it 
had nothing to do with his classes.  Is it possible that Riddle's 
presence in the diary is so powerful that it lured Harry into these 
actions?  If that's how the diary's magic begins, it's not so 
surprising that Ginny was enchanted by it, or that Riddle had put so 
much of himself into her that he could make her open it up again 
against her wishes.  

Now, would Ginny crack?  If Ginny was already caught by Riddle's 
diary -- not once but twice -- doesn't this make her a prime 
candidate for cracking?  After all, she's already cracked twice.  But 
maybe we're missing one point.  If Riddle's diary exerts such control 
over the possessor, how was Ginny able to throw it away?  Doesn't 
this demonstrate that she had developed some ability to resist?  And 
after she got the diary back, and it began exerting its power over 
her, she tried to confess to Ron, but lost her nerve when Percy 
showed up.  So maybe the diary wasn't in complete control of her, 
after all.  Now that she's 
older, more experienced and more wary, I think it might be much 
harder to make her crack a third time.

Debbie (warming to Ginny, but not quite prepared to bring a 
GIANTCUSHION to the hearthside)




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 12 03:51:08 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 03:51:08 -0000
Subject: Ron Going To The Dark Side
In-Reply-To: <110.d2af122.2999c77a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a4a3fc+iji2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35065

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., 
> Cindysphynx wites:
> 
> >  Harry will never Crack, and Hermione will never 
> > Crack, so I guess it has to be Ron.

Chelsea2162 at a... wrote: 
> Ah, another person believing that Ron will, ahem, go over to the 
> dark side. While it IS a possibility, I don't think that it will 
> actually happen. 
> I DO believe however, that Ron will be tempted, and someone with 
> possibly try to lure him onto LV's side, but in the end, Ron will 
> prove himself loyal to Harry, as he has done so many times before. 
> A good example of this, is when Ron willingly sacrifices himself 
> during the chess game in CoS. Only someone utterly loyal to his 
> friends would do such a thing.

What is this preoccupation with heroes tempted to the dark side?!?
Harry Potter is a KID'S BOOK WITH A PG RATING! (I had to say that)

I don't believe any of the trio will go bad OR run away as they have 
all faced their demons in the first four books. Harry has faced death 
and LV in all 4 books and face to face in GofF.

RON, who played chess in Sorceror's Stone (Correction Chelsea) went 
into the unknown to save Ginny in CoS and never ran. He never backed 
down during PoA or GoF and will stand by Harry to the end.

HERMIONE, is the surprising character. A Muggle-born witch, she 
suddenly finds herself confident to the most famous wizard of her 
generation. A year before Book 1  she probably hadn't evem HEARD of 
Magic and suddenly she's thrown in the middle of a war against an 
undead sorcerer who wants to kill all of her kind! Does she do want 
any normal 11 yr old would do and run? NO! SHE joins Harry and Ron 
into the unknown. She helps Harry reach Quirrel in SS.

In CoS is the first to discover they face a basilisk that' 
targeting muggleborns. Does she run? NO! She has the courage and 
intelligence to look around corners with a mirror. And after being 
petrified for over a month what's her first thought? "OhmyGod It tried 
to kill me?" NO! It's "They're cancelling Exams? OH NO!"

If any main character is TEMPTED (which does not mean corrupted) It 
will probably be Percy who at 18 or 19 found himself running the 
entire Department for International Cooperation. In the next book, he 
will suddenly find himself torn between Dumbledore and Fudge. He may 
have to choose either his Father or his career. Difficult dilemma for 
a first job, Huh?

Uncmark






From uncmark at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 12 09:00:07 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:00:07 -0000
Subject: Ginny, Riddle's Diary and Cracking
In-Reply-To: <a4abhi+mrts@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4alin+balv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35066

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elfundeb" <djdwjt at a...> wrote:
> Ginny after recovering Riddle's diary from Harry, opens it up 
> again, leading to 2 more Petrefications and her own near-death.  
> How could anyone be so dumb?  

She is only 11, having her soul attacked by a dark magic artifact of 
great power. Personally I feel she must have exercised some control 
as no one was killed.

> Harry, when he had the diary spent a lot of time flipping through 
> the pages trying to figure it out.  Is it possible that Riddle's 
> presence in the diary is so powerful that it lured Harry into these 
> actions?  

Absolutely. LV's magic was strong enough to preserve an earlier self 
of LV and escape all of Dumbledore's magical wards. It was a 
contingency plan if he did die. Did he plan all that from age 16?

> Now, would Ginny crack?  If Ginny was already caught by Riddle's 
> diary -- not once but twice -- doesn't this make her a prime 
> candidate for cracking?  After all, she's already cracked twice.  
> But maybe we're missing one point.  If Riddle's diary exerts such 
> control over the possessor, how was Ginny able to throw it away?  
> Doesn't this demonstrate that she had developed some ability to 
> resist?  Now that she's older, more experienced and more wary, I 
> think it might be much harder to make her crack a third time.

This echoes an earlier post of mine where I asserted that Ginny 
was 'marked' by LV much like Harry was with his scar. She has faced 
her worst fear (WITHOUT the support of 2 great friends) and is a much 
stronger character for it.

She's probably matured more than Harry, who resented Cedric because 
of Cho and almost missed a VITAL clue in GofF. Meanwhile Ginny went 
from the giggling child with her elbow in the butter to the girl who 
politely refused his invite to the Yule Ball. "I can't...I'm going 
with... with Neville. He asked me when Hermione said no. I thought 
I'm not going to be able to go otherwise. I'm not in 4th year."

Ginny does not cry or yell, although she's described as 'going 
scarlet' and 'looking miserable'. She's gentle with Harry's feelings, 
something her year older brother was completely oblivious to in his 
treatment of Hermione. Ginny allowed herself to have genuine fun at 
the Yule Ball. Something Ron and Harry couldn't do, pouting and 
pining for Hermione & Cho.

As girls of their teens are much more mature than boys of the same 
age I think Ginny would be a much better match than Cho Chang. Cho is 
a full year older than Harry and I suspect she was in real love with 
Cedric and might not like Harry to be around as a constant reminder 
of Cedric.

Uncmark







From lrcjestes at earthlink.net  Tue Feb 12 14:41:55 2002
From: lrcjestes at earthlink.net (siriusgeologist)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 14:41:55 -0000
Subject: A Sirius Offense, Round 2 (WAS a Sirius Defense, Round 2)
In-Reply-To: <a4a9s3+5v7s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4b9jj+knu2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35067

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:
> 
> I think the death of his friends and witnessing the attack by 
> Pettigrew could trigger PTSD, yes.  But, Jo Serenadust had referred 
> specifically to his time in Azkaban, and that was what I was 
> responding to.  I also just don't think that the events of 
> Holloween 1981 would be likely to make him violent.
> 

Maybe it would make him violent, maybe not.  It certainly led to some 
sort of hysterical breakdown as told by Stan Shunpike.  That 
breakdown certainly wasn't healed by 12 years with the dementors.  
One of my pet theories...wholly unsubstantiated by any canon...is 
that one reason the dementors didn't effect Sirius was that he was 
already in a state of advanced depression by the time he got to 
Azkaban that dementor induced depression couldn't take as much hold 
on him.  

I guess where we are going with the whole PTSD thing is that it 
provides a mechanism for dissociation and therefore irrational 
behavior that may not be indicative of his true character.  NOt 
necessarily an excuse for his behavior, but a means of explaining the 
differing Sirius'. 

Snape has no such excuse for his abhorant behavior towards his 
students. His words and actions are carefully planned chosen to do 
the most damage.  Most of Sirius' anti-social behavior is completed 
in pursuit or other non-controlled situations.


> I said:
> > > Sirius is a wonderful guy -- nay, a saint -- except when he's 
> > > choking
> > > his godson, breaking a boy's leg, slashing everything in sight,
> > > feeding a classmate to a werewolf, or threatening to AK a former
> > > friend, which unfortunately is almost all we ever see him do.
> 
> Penny listed many other, better things Sirius has done:
> > 1.  Risking his life to save Harry...
> > 2.  Writing a permission note ... and giving an owl to Ron (seems 
a 
> > 3.  Writing concerned letters to his godson...
> > 4.  Leaving the safety of his tropical hiding place...
> > 5.  Risking detection by having a fireside chat with Harry ...
> > 6.  Keeping in constant contact with Harry & Dumbledore...
> > 7.  Demonstrating wisdom ...in his cave conversation with the Trio
> > 8.  The post-3rd Task scene in Dumbledore's office. 
> 
> Well, I admit my quote was exaggerated for dramatic effect.  
However, 
> I also believe that actions speak louder than words.  (This is one 
of 
> the reasons I think Snape isn't so bad; he says nasty things, but 
what 
> we've actually seen him *do* isn't so bad.) 

We've also never seen him in the rather desperate situations we've 
seen Sirius in.  We can imagine that Snape has been in desperate 
situations, but we've never seen him actually react...most of the 
scenes in which we've seen Snape have been rather controlled 
situations when he is an authority figure with a certain amount of 
power and control over that situation.  Very differnt from Sirius' 
position as a hunted virtually powerless wizard.

> Ok, so Sirius answers his 
> mail and makes some wise comments, but I don't see that as such a 
big 
> deal.  Heck, for all we know, Snape has lots of penpals, whom he 
> answers promptly, with sage advice.  Would that make you like him? 
>

Oh come on....the act of answering his mail is in itself a risk for 
Sirius.  Not so for Snape.  He's secure in his position at Hogwarts.  
It's not nearly the same thing. 

> Now, I will grant that Sirius shows real concern for Harry at 
various 
> points (like, when he isn't choking him), as evidenced by your 
points 
> 1, 4, and 5.  However, as I've said before, one thing that bothers 
me 
> about Sirius is that he acts as if only his friends count, and 
other 
> people don't. 

Have we really seen or heard what he did between Hogwarts and 
Azkaban.  I think that would tell volumes about whether you 
impression about Sirius is correct or not.  So far he's been 
interacting with only his friends out of necessity.  

> Penny, I get the feeling that it really matters to you whether 
people 
> like Sirius or not.  Why?
> 

It's not about whether you personally like or dislike a character.  
Its about the debate.  It's interesting to see your perspective and 
then counter your arguments.  It helps clarify my perceptions of this 
character and maybe point something out to someone who isn't as 
committed to disliking Sirius.  I don't think we'll ever say anything 
that would make you like his character...just as I don't think anyone 
will ever say anything to make me enjoy delving into Snapes 
character.  It's the thrill of the debate that keeps us here.

Carole




From ritadarling at ivillage.com  Tue Feb 12 13:39:45 2002
From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (ritadear2)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 13:39:45 -0000
Subject: Snape, yet again!
In-Reply-To: <a49ncl+r675@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4b5v1+a2ks@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35068

"I'm waiting  to see when the Unofficial Severus Snape Fan Club 
is formed."

Well, wait no longer, there are tons of them.  Unfortunately most 
of the members aren't old enough to participate in this list, lol.  
But, he's a pretty popular guy. 

and
"I have sat here wondering all this time about the real partners of 
these women that are so fond of Snape..."

Well, my dh of 10+ years think I am NUTS.  I think Snape is just 
lots of fun, I mean who is a more complex and confusing 
character?  In real life, would I give any time to a greasy-haired, 
spitting, yellow-toothed, melodramatic, petty guy in a black cape? 
More likely, I'd call the police! 

Rita





From ritadarling at ivillage.com  Tue Feb 12 13:44:43 2002
From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (ritadear2)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 13:44:43 -0000
Subject: Hermione's Imminent Crisis
In-Reply-To: <3C683549.593.7494537@localhost>
Message-ID: <a4b68b+q3jn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35069

"Hey, if Harry takes up with Cho (in any capacity closer than the 
previous books have shown), Hermione is all set to have a 
Serious Self Esteem Crisis ... here's someone who's smart 
(Ravenclaw, remember?), cute, popular, has Harry's 
eye (or whatever) AND plays a dynamite game of Quidditch. And 
she's *nice*, which makes it even worse, and everyone feels 
sorry for her because of Cedric."

I don't see Hermione being that lacking in self-esteem.  Really.  
My one hope for Hermione is that she gets herself some 
girlfriends, she really does need some.  Maybe if Harry gets 
closer to Cho, she and Hermione could form a tight 
friendship--like a girl does with her boyfriend's sister.  

Rita







From devin.smither at yale.edu  Tue Feb 12 15:20:40 2002
From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:20:40 -0000
Subject: Ginny in general/The point of discussing here/lots of things WAS: Ginny/diary
In-Reply-To: <a4alin+balv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4bbs8+t4hu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35070

(snip elfundeb and Uncmark's discussion of Ginny being duped by 
Riddle and his diary, though they eventually seem to agree she should 
not be blamed for it--as did Dumbledore)

elfundeb wrote:

> > Now, would Ginny crack?  If Ginny was already caught by Riddle's 
> > diary -- not once but twice -- doesn't this make her a prime 
> > candidate for cracking?  After all, she's already cracked twice.  
> > But maybe we're missing one point.  If Riddle's diary exerts such 
> > control over the possessor, how was Ginny able to throw it away?  
> > Doesn't this demonstrate that she had developed some ability to 
> > resist?  Now that she's older, more experienced and more wary, I 
> > think it might be much harder to make her crack a third time.
> 
> 

Uncmark replied:

This echoes an earlier post of mine where I asserted that Ginny 
> was 'marked' by LV much like Harry was with his scar. She has faced 
> her worst fear (WITHOUT the support of 2 great friends) and is a 
much 
> stronger character for it.
> 
> She's probably matured more than Harry, who resented Cedric because 
> of Cho and almost missed a VITAL clue in GofF. Meanwhile Ginny went 
> from the giggling child with her elbow in the butter to the girl 
who 
> politely refused his invite to the Yule Ball. "I can't...I'm going 
> with... with Neville. He asked me when Hermione said no. I thought 
> I'm not going to be able to go otherwise. I'm not in 4th year."
> 
> Ginny does not cry or yell, although she's described as 'going 
> scarlet' and 'looking miserable'. She's gentle with Harry's 
feelings, 
> something her year older brother was completely oblivious to in his 
> treatment of Hermione. Ginny allowed herself to have genuine fun at 
> the Yule Ball. Something Ron and Harry couldn't do, pouting and 
> pining for Hermione & Cho.
> 
> As girls of their teens are much more mature than boys of the same 
> age I think Ginny would be a much better match than Cho Chang. Cho 
is 
> a full year older than Harry and I suspect she was in real love 
with 
> Cedric and might not like Harry to be around as a constant reminder 
> of Cedric.

--------------------------------

Ahem, first of all, Ms. ladjables (Ama, yes? I'm sorry I'm not 
certain), no need for the grovelling at all.  I was definitely over 
the line on my calling out that it was my theory (MINE, I tell 
you!).  The polite thing would have been to say nothing, and I 
apologize for being a jerk.

Now, onto my favorite pet topic of Ginny, the girl who will in fact 
be at Harry's side, probably starting in Book VI (though it might 
start to show up in Book V) through Book VII if he dies, and after 
book VII married to him if he lives.  Don't worry, the canon evidence 
is coming, even if beautiful, wondrous Uncmark and elfundeb have 
already provided so much of it already.

(Of course, I could just be prejudiced because I've recently written 
a fanfic about this, but all the same...I think the ideas hold water)

My basic point of take-off for the H/G ship is in their common bond 
in having encountered Riddle/Voldemort.  I note that it is not at all 
the same thing to encounter Riddle as it is to encounter V.  Yet, I 
say, the same person is certainly responsible for the worst portions 
of each of their lives, and only they have come face-to-face with 
dear old R/V and lived to tell the tale recently.  (Just ask Cedric's 
ghost about that one)  I feel that their survival of these encounters 
shows a similar kind of fundamental strength, and a root in 
unbelievable stamina and kindness.  I was only more convinced of this 
when I was reminded by Uncmark that Ginny both attempted to throw 
away the diary AND cough up the truth (under the duress of being 
controlled by the Darkest wizard of them all).  Her self-worth and 
generosity only skyrocket for me in GoF when she refuses the dream 
date with Harry (obvious that it's still the dream date because she 
looks miserable, etc. when Harry brings up Cho and Ginny has to say 
she's going with Neville).  I understand those who want the Ginny, 
Neville combo, but I feel that for Harry's and Ginny's mutual 
benefit, their ship is best.  Only they will REALLY be able to 
comfort/soothe/understand each other when it comes to old Voldie.

Mind you, I DO NOT like the idea of Ginny-as-girlfriend-and-that's-
her-whole-identity.  No, no, no, NO!  We need to see more development 
in her personally and character.  I believe that OotP will do this 
for her.  She will truly come in to her own, and then in the next 
book, we can try to get some Filibusters going between H and G.  I 
believe Rowling has said Ginny will play a bigger part in OotP, and I 
think this foreshadows her culmination into a driving force in 
Harry's life.  Some think it's because Ginny is doomed in OotP.  To 
them I say...feh.  I really don't think this is possible.  Pit her 
against Riddle, show her obvious strength and love...then kill her 
off in Book V.  Nope, not a satisfying story arc.  Maybe she COULD 
die in VII...maybe, but not now.  Another thing, Cho will be around 
one more year in OotP, and I think it's necessary to show Harry's 
relinquishment of this crush (which probably is slightly hampered by 
his involvement in her recent boyfriend's/love's/good 
friend's/whatever's death) before he can move on the next year into 
any sort of successful romantic relationship.  I also think 
Ron's/Hermione's inevitable hook-up is good in that it isolates Harry 
even more in a story about Harry's isolation, his loneliness, his 
solitude.  Add it up, and Ginny and Harry are each other's comfort in 
a cruel, Voldemort-terrified world.  How this will effect the 
chemistry between HRH is difficult to analyze, but I think Rowling 
can do it with grace.

Onto something else for those sick of ships *coughElkinscough*, I was 
pondering the merit of discussion in general on these boards.  
Occasionally, it seems as though things only go in cycles (especially 
after one and a half years--darn you and your need to have a 
relationship with your new husband and your daughter, J.K. Rowling--
without new material).  I wonder what people come back here for after 
all this time (not that I've been here long by any means, but even in 
this short time, it comes around and around--Snape is thus and such, 
Sirius is this and that).  I think one reason people keep coming back 
is that they hope to have new insights pointed out (nice job, Elkins, 
pointing out Avery's mysteriousness in GoF in terms of no physical 
description and his possibility as fourth defendant in the Pensieve 
scene).  Another is to convince people of their own viewpoint (though 
judyserenity's viewpoint of Sirius is enough to prove that is not 
often possible--try as I and others might).  I think that one of the 
biggest ones actually is to be able to strut around after a pet 
theory turns out to be true in a future book (if Avery turns out to 
be a head villain in OotP or VI, we'll see at least a smile, if not 
the hugest laugh in the history of Harry Potter discussion).  I guess 
I'm here to see if anyone believes in my own viewpoints and also to 
see if people have viewpoints I can ascribe to (like LOLLIPOPS for 
isntance, which I of course do now ascribe to in as "ewww"-free a 
form as I can conceive of).  What are other people really here for?

I recall someone asking about other Dark spells, and I immediately 
thought of Morsmordre, but off the top of my head, that's it.  Any 
other examples people can think of?

I had more to say, but I think I'll leave it here for now.  I'd just 
like to announce my newly-unmoderated status *does strut similar to 
one he will do when G/H ship is proved true* and say thanks to 
everyone.  It's been a very interesting couple of weeks of 
discussion.  Let's keep going.

Devin




From cindysphynx at home.com  Tue Feb 12 15:51:39 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:51:39 -0000
Subject: Ambushes and a New Avery Theory
In-Reply-To: <a4a9rr+5r1j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4bdmb+40re@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35071

Elkins wrote (about the victims of the ambush):

> Dolohov, eh?  I suppose that makes sense, given Crouch's exchange 
with
> Karkaroff in the Pensieve scene.  Any chance I could convince you 
to 
> off Wilkes in an entirely separate scenario?  
> 
> See, (where's the canon, where's the...) Wilkes was probably in a 
> different *cell,* right?  Because otherwise Karkaroff would have
> named him at the Pensieve hearing, along with Rosier and Dolohov.  
> The fact that he *didn't* name him leads me to believe that either 
> Wilkes was already dead by the time of Karkaroff's arrest or that 
> Wilkes and Karkaroff were in different "cells" of the DE 
> organization, and so didn't really know each other.
> 
> Either way, you need a separate scenario to account for Wilkes' 
> demise.
> 

This is a dream come true!  People are buying the ambush idea in 
droves (how many people does it take to make a drove, anyway?)!  
We're now to the point of talking about ambushes like . . . like 
there's actually some canon to support them or something! Wow!  Are 
we all agreed that Snape arranged the ambush(es) to prove his loyalty 
to Dumbledore?  Please?  Pretty please?

Well, now that we know for a fact that there absolutely, definitely 
was an ambush, regardless of what JKR has to say about the matter, we 
have to pin down how it happened.  Here's what we know:

1.  Karkaroff.  In the Pensieve, Karkaroff has already been 
convicted.  Moody apparently took 6 months to track Karkaroff down. 

2.  Dolohov.  Captured "shortly after" Karkaroff, but Karkaroff 
doesn't know this.  Karkaroff definitely knew Dolohov, as he saw him 
torture people.

3.  Rosier.  Caught "shortly after" Karkaroff also.  Dead, but took a 
piece of Moody with him.  Karkaroff knew him, too.

4.  Travers and Mulciber.  Fingered by Karkaroff, but already 
apprehended.

5.  Wilkes.  Karkaroff doesn't finger Wilkes, but Wilkes is dead, 
having expired the year before Voldemort fell.

Karkaroff is desperately casting about for names, and we have to 
presume he names every single Death Eater he can think of.  
He doesn't name the Lestranges, Avery, Wilkes or Crouch Jr.   
Karkaroff clearly does his plea deal after Voldemort falls.  I 
suspect the plea deal occurs before the Longbottoms are tortured 
(otherwise, I would suspect Crouch Sr. would ask him about this 
specifically).  Avery and the Lestranges (and Crouch Jr.) are walking 
around scott free.  Why doesn't Karkaroff give them up?  

I think there's only one answer that makes sense.  Karkaroff just 
doesn't know these folks.  This, uh, destroys Elkins' half-
hearted "Karkaroff Was Mrs. Lestranges' Little Pet Igor" theory, 
thank goodness.  (No need to thank me; it's the least I could 
do.<vbg>)

So I'm thinking that in the Pensieve scene, Karkaroff knows nothing 
about the ambush at all, which is why he keeps naming people who are 
captured or dead.  That leads me to believe that the people he names 
were the victims of the ambush.

Wilkes?  Who knows?  I guess he wasn't in the ambush.  Maybe 
Voldemort killed him. :-)

I know what you're thinking.  Karkaroff also names Rookwood, who we 
know was still at large.  Ah, but Rookwood is the head of the 
Department of Mysteries, making him, well, mysterious.  Why wasn't 
Rookwood at the ambush?  It's because Rookwood had intelligence that 
the ambush was going down.  There's *no way* the head of the 
Department of Mysteries doesn't know what Longbottom and Moody are up 
to.  So Rookwood makes sure not to show up at the meeting Snape 
arranged. Rookwood probably tried to owl the other Death Eaters, but, 
owing to the inefficiency of owl post, couldn't reach anyone in time.

To recap, then, we have Death Eater Cell 1 with Rookwood, Karkaroff, 
Wilkes, Travers, Dolohov, Snape, Mulciber.  We have Death Eater 
Cell 2 with Pettigrew, Avery, Malfoy, MacNair, Crabbe, Goyle, Nott, 
Crouch Jr., the Lestranges and . . . Bagman.  Karkaroff only knows 
about the people in his cell, and he betrays every single one of them 
that he knows to be alive.  Snape doesn't know about Pettigrew 
because he's in the other cell, and Snape isn't even sure about 
Malfoy.  

Elkins again:

> But look on the bright side.  This way, you can have *two* ambushes!
> Smaller ones, yes, and perhaps a tad less Great-And-Bloody than
> you like -- but *two* of them!  

No, I have to have one Great Ambush.  How dumb do we think the Death 
Eaters are?  They might walk en masse into one ambush, but two?  No, 
they would wise up.  That's why Rookwood was able to stay at large -- 
he saw all of his buddies go down, and he decided he was 
communicating by owl post only from that point forward.

Elkins again (contemplating exactly how bloody the Great Big Ambush 
was):
 
> Of course, if it's Travers, then your ambush is a tad less Bloody, 
>as
> Travers would seem to have been taken alive.  <snip>
> Much as I like Longbottom-takes-down-three-DEs-single-handed, 
though, 
> I'm still going to keep on plumping for Rosier-dead-at-Moody's-
>hands,because I like what it does to Snape's interactions with 
>Crouch/Moody all through GoF.  

Tell ya what I'm gonna do.  We can have A Great Ambush with Dolohov, 
Rosier, Travers, Mulciber.  It's two Aurors against four Death 
Eaters.  Rosier is a loose cannon who has always been a great shot 
and a little too impressed with his own dueling abilities.  Rosier 
sees Moody and immediately knows he has been set up.  Moody starts to 
shout out something like "Keep your wand where I can see it, and 
let's talk about this, because we wouldn't want anyone to 
get . . . "  Rosier pulls out his wand and tries to blast Moody, but 
misses wide right and grazes a chunk from Moody's nose.  Moody, 
(being Tough so that one little wand blast will never bring him down) 
shows no mercy and blasts Rosier point blank, right between the eyes, 
just like Elkins so desperately wants.  This is consistent with 
canon, because it fits with Moody's tendency to try to bring people 
in alive, and only killing when he has to.

Then Travers, Mulciber and Dolohov put up a fierce struggle against 
Frank Longbottom, who eventually subdues all three in a glorious 
firefight.  (Moody helps a little, but Frank does the heavy 
lifting).  Moody, being a fabulous guy and also rather thankful that 
Frank saved Moody's life in the firefight, tells everyone how 
fabulous Frank is and gives him all the credit in the Daily Prophet, 
making Frank very popular.  (This makes the scenes between Fake Moody 
and Neville all the more chilling because Real Moody has told Crouch 
Jr. all about this, and Fake Moody uses it to get close to Neville.)  

I also like this theory because it explains why Mrs. Lestrange went 
after Frank.  She could have picked any Auror to try to extract 
information about Voldemort.  But she picks Frank because she wants 
revenge for his role in the ambush because he killed her old flame 
Rosier.  (She doesn't know it was Moody who killed Rosier because 
Moody gave Frank all the credit, and Mrs. Lestrange is still a little 
woozy from her time in Azkaban.)  

It also explains why (canon, where's the canon?) Moody tried so hard 
to apprehend Mrs. Lestrange, Crouch Jr. and Mystery Man for the 
Longbottom's torture.  

I've endorsed a theory before about how Mrs. Lestrange is a real 
wildcat, and it was a firefight with Mrs. Lestrange that cost Moody 
his leg and his eye.  This explains why Moody was not present at the 
Lestranges trial; he was at St. Mungo's as a test subject for the 
Bionic Auror program.  In this theory, Moody figured he owed Frank, 
and he would apprehend Mrs. Lestrange and her gang or die trying.

Anyway, I know I'm a little short on canon here.  But you have to 
admit that JKR seems to have been very precise in weaving a rather 
complex tale of which DEs did what and where everyone was at 
particular points in the timeline.  I doubt that it was all random.

Now, on to Avery.

***********

Cindy wrote:

> > No, Avery is and has been head of DMC since the Potters were 
> > killed. 
> 
Elkins questioned:

> He was head of a Ministry Department by the time he was twenty-one
> years *old?*
> 
> I mean, we all know that Avery's a misunderstood genius and
> everything, but don't you thknk that might be a little...much?
> 

Yes, Avery most certainly was the head of the Department of Magical 
Catastrophies (or maybe second in command) at a young age.  Why?  Was 
it merit or talent or proven ability?  Heck no.  Avery just knew lots 
of people in high places.  If Snape can be a young head of house at 
Hogwarts, Avery can head a department that doesn't do anything more 
complex or important than clean up messes.

Elkins again:
 
> Besides, I think that if Avery were heading the DMC, then he 
wouldn't
> occupy nearly so low a rank in Sirius' evaluation of threat to 
Harry,
> do you?  

Ah, but look at who else Sirius mentions.  He mentions Rosier 
(dangerous and crazy enough to take on Moody), Wilkes (dangerous and 
crazy enough to take on Voldemort), and the Lestranges (just plain 
dangerous and crazy).  Wouldn't you mention Avery last out of that 
group, even if he were responsible for a department that has 
responsibilities for little things like deflating Aunt Marge?

Cindy wrote:

> > Now that things have settled down, Avery is leading a quiet life 
as 
> > a middle-aged bureaucrat...
 
Elkins Shrieked:


> Middle-aged?  MIDDLE-AGED?
> 
> Cindy, if we assume that Avery is Snape's age, which I think is 
>quite
> strongly suggested by the text, then he is only around 35 years old!
> 
> And 35 is *not* middle-aged!  

Oops!  Did I strike a nerve there?  Sorry 'bout that.  Let's see.  
What can I do to put this right?

Uh, Elkins, You Look Marvelous For 35!

There.  That do? ;-)

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

Elkins wrote (New Avery Theory)

<snip terrific observations about how Avery is the Fourth Man> 

::jaw drops in admiration::

Wow!  I am so totally sold.  All I can do is try to prop up this 
theory even more, and tweak it to place Avery at the DMC.

Elkins wrote (about the little problem that Sirius couldn't worm his 
way out of Azkaban):

> Because Bleeding Hearts don't *like* Sirius Black, that's why.  
>They 
> all think he's a brute; he reminds far too many of them of those 
> popular kids who used to pick on them in school.  And besides, 
> Dumbledore himself had never expressed any doubts about Black's 
> guilt 


Hold on, there.  We don't have to disparage dear Sirius to explain 
this his extended stay in Azkaban.  Sirius didn't get out of Azkaban 
with Avery for lots of good reasons.  First, Sirius was guilty as 
sin.  Everyone saw him blow up 13 people, and Albus said Sirius 
betrayed the Potters.  For all we know, Albus worked vigorously 
*against* Sirius' release, which would explain why Albus would do 
anything now to make amends to Sirius for this.  (It would also 
explain why Sirius never sent Albus an owl in PoA).  

Avery's own guilt was less tangible.  He probably just stood there 
flinching while Mrs. Lestrange was doing a number on the 
Longbottoms.  It is easier to believe that his conduct was the result 
of the Imperius Curse, particularly if we believe the Fidelius Charm 
can't be broken with the Imperius Curse.

Also, Sirius was feeling, uh, a little down on himself for having 
allowed his best friend and his wife to be savagely killed and in 
botching his attempt to avenge their deaths.  So he wasn't interested 
in escaping and he felt he deserved to spend the rest of his life 
there.  My Sirius would *never* spin some cockin' bull story about 
how he really did help kill Lily and his best friend James and killed 
his other best friend Peter and killed a bunch of helpless muggles, 
but he was acting under the Imperius Curse.  Claiming to be under the 
Imperius Curse is for wimps and toadies.  Sirius would rot in Azkaban 
before he'd admit guilt for something he didn't do.  Sirius is 
*Tough*.

Elkins again:

> Traumatized, twitchy, and Having Had Quite Enough Of *That*, Thank 
> You Very Much, Avery then goes home to live in his mother's 
basement, 
> where he takes up coin-collecting.  He never pursues a visible or 
> prestigious career, stays as far away from the public eye as he can 
> manage, and whenever he gets an owl from one of his old DE 
comrades, 
> scrawls "Return To Sender" hastily onto the outside of the envelope 
> and owls it right back unopened.
> 

His mother's basement?  No, probably not.  I think Avery gets out of 
Azkaban, and Fudge has been promoted to Minister of Magic.  Fudge 
might or might not be a Death Eater.  But either way, we know for a 
fact that Fudge isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.  So Avery 
asks for his old job back.  Fudge knows and likes Avery, and Fudge 
(being prone to denying the obvious) never really believed Avery was 
guilty.  Who knows?  Maybe Fudge pardoned Avery singlehandedly.  The 
DMC is now very short of people who know how to puncture Aunts, so 
Fudge gives Avery his old job, with back pay to compensate for 
Avery's wrongful imprisonment.  Avery does, however, resist all 
contact from Death Eaters like Lucius who would like to go on a 
Voldemort hunt.  

Cindy (who is sold on the Fourth Man Theory, but feels confident that 
these S.Y.C.O.P.H.A.N.T.S. members eat their ice cream straight from 
the carton while lying in bed)




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Feb 12 16:42:50 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:42:50 -0000
Subject: Snape, yet again!
In-Reply-To: <a49ncl+r675@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4bgma+72bv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35072

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" <midwife34 at a...> 
> >WahAhAhaaahaa ! That was my laugh of the day , and i thank 
you:-)
> I have sat here wondering all this time about the real partners 
of  these women that are so fond of Snape.......How about "Dark 
Souled Wizards and the Women who Hate to Love Them"?
> 

LOL!
My RP of 26+years... brown hair streaked with grey, twinkling 
blue eyes, great sense of humor, high school prankster, former 
motorcyle owner, gentle disposition, buys me expensive 
presents that I want but can't persuade myself I deserve, turns 
into a beast occasionally  ;-)

Nope, doesn't sound like Snape, more like 
Lupin+Sirius+Dumbledore...but then  why fantasize about what 
you already have?

What about the rest of you, does anyone in your life resemble an 
HP character? Replies to OT-Chatter.

Pippin




From heidit at netbox.com  Tue Feb 12 16:47:53 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:47:53 -0000
Subject: SHIP: Problems with the concept of G/H
In-Reply-To: <a4bbs8+t4hu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4bgvp+d4e8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35073

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uilnslcoap" <devin.smither at y...> wrote:
> Now, onto my favorite pet topic of Ginny, the girl who will in 
fact 
> be at Harry's side, probably starting in Book VI (though it might 
> start to show up in Book V) through Book VII if he dies, and after 
> book VII married to him if he lives.  

Two things - one elfish, one completely personal:
1. Please don't say "in fact" unless you've managed to read either 
Book 5 or JKR's private notebooks - please say IMHO, because that's 
what it is. Or say "I Hope." Not "I know," as you don't.
2. Married? Can I borrow the Ewwww acronym for this? Can we get an 
acronym which covers the issue of Why 16 Year Old Girls Should Not 
Be Married Or Even Engaged Even in the WIzarding World - Ron's 
birthday is March 1. Unless witches gestate for shorter periods of 
time than Muggles, Ginny's birthday really can't be earlier than 
February - you think it's a good idea for a girl who's barely 17, at 
most, and more likely 16, to be married or engaged to a 17 year old, 
just because when she was 11 she was posessed by the same Dark 
wizard who tried to kill him when he was 15 months old? How is that 
a basis for a relationship?

Perhaps my problem with this is that I am presupposing that the 
posession ended completely when Harry stabbed the Diary. IN other 
words, Ginny may still be affected by her memories, but she's not 
still got a bit of Riddle in her. If there was, it would've been 
something *he* left in there on purpose, in which case I find her to 
be completely untrustworthy. 

Furthermore, the workings of curses, which in backfiring placed a 
bit of Riddle into Harry when he was 15 months old (with a very 
undeveloped brain compared to an 11 year old) seem to be very 
different than the workings of the posession Riddle had over Ginny. 
In rereading CoS, it sounds more like he used Imperio, and for only 
very brief periods, when he needed her to do something. The pages 
may've been treated - by him or by Lucius (aside: wouldn't it be 
wonderful if it had been a potion created by Snape?) to compel 
anyone who picked it up to read it, flip through the pages, try and 
write in it. That's not the same as a curse which seems to rip out 
someone's essence, which is what AK is. 

> My basic point of take-off for the H/G ship is in their common 
bond 
> in having encountered Riddle/Voldemort.  I note that it is not at 
all 
> the same thing to encounter Riddle as it is to encounter V.  Yet, 
I 
> say, the same person is certainly responsible for the worst 
portions 
> of each of their lives, and only they have come face-to-face with 
> dear old R/V and lived to tell the tale recently.  
Erm, no. 
: points to Draco in the Forrest in Book 1. He saw Voldemort, 
through Quirrell, drinking the blood of the unicorn - and he is 
still alive and kicking. And of course a lot of death eaters saw him 
as well, but I presume you're only including people who you presume 
to be "good"?

Of course, there's also a whole school of thought that is convinced 
that Ginny isn't really Ginny anymore, and has been mostly-Riddle 
since the diary was destroyed. An interesting concept, IMHO, 
although not one I'm sure I can accept as canonical - the likelihood 
of JKR having Riddle "regrowing up" as a Weasley is just a little 
too weird. But, maybe.

> I feel that their survival of these encounters 
> shows a similar kind of fundamental strength, and a root in 
> unbelievable stamina and kindness.  I was only more convinced of 
this 
> when I was reminded by Uncmark that Ginny both attempted to throw 
> away the diary AND cough up the truth (under the duress of being 
> controlled by the Darkest wizard of them all).  
But what if she threw the diary away *because* she was controlled by 
Riddle? Let me elaborate...
Riddle says (p. 312, US edition) that "[f]or many months now, my new 
target has been -- you." In other words, he'd set his eye on getting 
to know Harry, getting access to Harry. Ginny had told him a lot 
about Harry, and he wanted to meet him. 

The chronology we know is all from Riddle - Ginny stopped trusting 
the diary and threw it away - and Harry, of course, picked it up. 
This wouldn't've been very hard for Riddle to engineer when Ginny 
started not trusting the diary - he could've told her to throw him 
away, and then released his hold on her at a time and place where it 
was possible that Harry Potter, who Riddle already knew to be 
a "mystery solver" (Cos, p.313, US edition) would find him. But as I 
said above, I only think that Riddle invoked Imperio, or a variation 
of it, on Ginny when she was actually writing, and when the diary 
was closed, she had more resistance to it. It would've been very 
dangerous to have her under the compulsion to read it all the time - 
too easy to get confiscated if she was using it in class. 

> I feel that for Harry's and Ginny's mutual 
> benefit, their ship is best.  Only they will REALLY be able to 
> comfort/soothe/understand each other when it comes to old Voldie.
Why do you think Harry is capable of being comforting or soothing to 
someone? He hasn't really done it in canon, although arguably his 
entreaties to Ron to go out in search of Ginny are comforting in a 
way - he's not especially good at empathy, IMHO. Furthermore, why 
should a relationship be based on being able to comfort and soothe 
your partner? Shouldn't it have a basis my matched temperments, 
mutual interests, common goals?

> We need to see more development 
> in her personally and character.  
I agree completely - I do hope she grows as a character, but NOT to 
be married off at 16ish! No offense to anyone who was married at 
that age (and merely then dating the person you eventually married 
doesn't count) but I think that especially where wizarding lifespans 
seem to be about 75% longer than Muggle, this is a Bad Idea.


heidi
http://www.fictionalley.org




From sandirs at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 12 16:42:52 2002
From: sandirs at hotmail.com (Sandi Steinberg)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:42:52 -0500
Subject: Hermione's Imminent Crisis (??)
Message-ID: <F139YynMsyUXhtJiRq100002883@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35074

Fiat Incantatum wrote:

"if Harry takes up with Cho (in any capacity closer than the previous books 
.....>have shown), Hermione is all set to have a Serious Self Esteem Crisis 
...>here's someone who's smart (Ravenclaw, remember?), cute, popular, has 
Harry's >eye (or whatever) AND plays a dynamite game of Quidditch.  And 
she's *nice*, >which makes it even worse, and everyone feels sorry for her 
because of Cedric.
>
  Well, I don't think so, personally.

  Like all girls her age, H has begun to think about her looks.  Society 
lets a little girl know very early in life is she is pretty of not, and with 
Draco humiliating her--now for her looks as well as her Muggle family--H 
defies her parents' (dentists') opinion and has some cosmetic dentistry done 
that really improves her appearance.

  The hair cosmetic does the same for her somewhat "bushy" hair; 
nevertheless, H makes a rational decision that it's too much bother to go 
through every day.  In other words, she doesn't NEED this cosmetic help to 
feel secure.  The most important thing to her is her studies, which seems 
very healthy to me in a 14-year old girl.

  Also, I can't help but feel that even tho' H wasn't attracted to Klum, his 
interest in her was VERY flattering and she's much too smart and observant 
not to notice that other boys (read: Ron) began to look at her a little 
differently....

  In the space of the 4 books, H has become less judgmental and less of a 
pill.  She's been a brave and loyal friend, and by GoF, both Harry and Ron 
have come to respect and to VALUE her diligence and researching abilities, 
even tho' they still find her academic intensity hard to understand.  
Everyone has grown up a lot and become more open and tolerant of everyone 
else's passions.

  As for a serious ACADEMIC rival, well, that is kind of interesting to 
pursue....a transfer student from Beauxbatons or Durmstrang, perhaps...

  Of course, if H met another girl as diligent as herself she might just 
have a new best friend with whom she could share her interests in the 
history of magic, Hogwarts, etc. without being scoffed at by "the guys."  I 
think there would only be a crisis if the new character turned out to be 
(for conjecture) Draco's nasty, never before seen twin sister.....Drusilla, 
anybody????

Sandi Steinberg
Arlington, VA







From john at walton.vu  Tue Feb 12 17:30:58 2002
From: john at walton.vu (John Walton)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:30:58 +0000
Subject: ADMIN: Remember to SHIP your shipping
In-Reply-To: <a4bgvp+d4e8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <B88F01D2.9CD9%john@walton.vu>

No: HPFGUIDX 35075

*flies in on a fetching purple-and-green weave Isfahan carpet*

Please remember, witches and wizards, to use the SHIP prefix in the subject
line of your shipping posts.

If you haven't got a clue what I'm talking about, you need to read the HPFGU
Netiquette guide at www.hpfgu.org.uk/netiquette -- and in fact all of the
HPFGU Admin Files at www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin

Please feel free to contact the Mods at hpforgrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com
if you have any questions :)

Magically,

--John, HPFGU Moderator With Rock #47
for the HPFGU Moderator Team
____________________________________________

-"You are drunk, Sir Winston, you are disgustingly drunk."
-"Yes, Mrs Braddock, I am drunk.?But you, Mrs Braddock, are ugly.
Tomorrow morning I, Winston Churchill, will be sober."

John Walton || john at walton.vu
____________________________________________




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Feb 12 17:38:34 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:38:34 -0000
Subject: SHIP: Problems with the concept of G/H
In-Reply-To: <a4bgvp+d4e8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4bjur+ko5p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35076

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "heiditandy" <heidit at n...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uilnslcoap" <devin.smither at y...> 
wrote:
> > Now, onto my favorite pet topic of Ginny, the girl who will in 
> fact 
> > be at Harry's side, probably starting in Book VI (though it 
might  start to show up in Book V) through Book VII if he dies, 
and after  book VII married to him if he lives.  

> 2. Married? Can I borrow the Ewwww acronym for this? Can we 
get an  acronym which covers the issue of Why 16 Year Old Girls 
Should Not Be Married Or Even Engaged Even in the WIzarding 
World - Ron's birthday is March 1. Unless witches gestate for 
shorter periods of  time than Muggles, Ginny's birthday really 
can't be earlier than  February - you think it's a good idea for a 
girl who's barely 17, at  most, and more likely 16, to be married 
or engaged to a 17 year old,  just because when she was 11 she 
was posessed by the same Dark  wizard who tried to kill him 
when he was 15 months old? How is that  a basis for a 
relationship?
> 
The books started with a prologue, set ten years before the main 
action of the book.  They are, according to reports of the 
Christmas JKR interview, destined to end with an epilogue that 
wraps everything up. So at the end of book VII need not mean 
"when Ginny is sixteen years old." I suggest G.E.W.G.A.W. -- 
Ginny's Early Wedding Gets Awfully Weird. However, I think 
weirdness is in the eye of the beholder.

We seem to be dealing with a society where government and 
corporate entities are weaker than in the Muggle world and 
clans/families are correspondingly stronger. Like, say, early 
Scotland, where marriages were often performed at a young age 
out of dynastic considerations. Anyone remember the folksong, 
"Daily Growin'?" 

http://shorty.mudcat.org/!!-song99.cfm?stuff=fall99+D+3120336

Since Harry has no wizarding family, the need to establish one 
by marriage might encourage him to tie the knot at an early age. I 
am not talking about the psychological connection to the 
Weasleys which he certainly already has, but a formal legal 
arrangement.   Adoption wouldn't work, since Harry wouldn't want 
to cut  his ties to the Potter legacy.

Pippin




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Tue Feb 12 17:56:35 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:56:35 -0000
Subject: Ambushes and a New Avery Theory
In-Reply-To: <a4bdmb+40re@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4bl0k+6ah2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35077

Someone recently asked why we hang around here, and this is my answer. 
 Because of such flashes of insight at Avery=the 4th man! Elkins, I 
think you've hit gold here. Now, if you could tell me who the third 
murderer is in Macbeth.... :-) 

I must admit that I brushed over the fourth man the first seven times 
I read the book. In fact, I don't feel I've mastered Goblet of Fire's 
complexities even now. It was only on my second reading that I 
realized Bertha told Voldemort about Crouch Jr. You see I was reading 
so fast to get to the end I was skimming through paragraphs. My 
problem reading HP is that I tend to read it like a children's book, 
rather than an adult detective novel. It isn't the latter, but it 
needs the same sort of reading. I'll keep that in mind for "Order of 
the Phoenix". (And yes, I did think Avery and Nott were the same 
person till about two weeks ago, when I said something about Avery 
Nott, and my brother said "Who?" This is most unfair since I have a 
perfect memory for every last detail of NON-essential HP information.)

But, having picked up GOF and looked up the scenes, I am feeling VERY 
surprised, and somewhat elated. Something new, and something real. 
LOLLIPOPS I fervently believe in, but it's somewhere in the past in 
the murky realms of motivation, this is right there under are eyes. 

As Elkins and Cindy note, it is very strange that the fourth man is 
given no attention by anyone, including Voldemort when he praises the 
Lestranges and Crouch Jr. I'll also note that the description of the 
fourth man "thinner and more nervous-looking", eyes "darting around 
the room" fit perfectly with the nervous wreck we meet in the 
graveyard.

Now, the fourth man gets up "quietly" with the two we assume are Mr. 
and Mrs. Lestrange "thickset man who stared blankly up at Crouch" and 
"woman, with think, shining dark hair, and heavily hooded eyes." It's 
probably Barty Crouch Jr. who leaves our bleeding hearts thinking, and 
I can't say I blame them. Even I sometimes wonder how far Crouch Jr. 
was in the business, though we know he's not as innocent as he made 
out to be. 

Crouch Sr. must have been sick at heart when the bleeding hearts 
reopened Crouch's and Avery's cases. Perhaps, if Crouch Jr. was still 
around to be released, they wouldn't have released Avery? Instead, 
Avery walks free and it's Crouch son who's locked up in the kitchen. 
Must have made him furious. 

As mentioned before, the convincing part of all this is that Avery 
really does act as if he needs forgiveness for something big. And 
Voldemort, even if he doesn't give it, gives a semblance of it. 
Finally, an answer for those who ask, "But how can Snape get back into 
the DE circle?" If Avery can, Snape can too, though I'm sure Voldemort 
has similar plans re: Cruciatus. 

Now, let's go to where Harry denounces the Death Eaters. It goes 
Malfoy, cleared. McNair, cleared. Then,

"Avery-Nott-Crabbe-Goyle-"

"You are merely repeating the names of those who were cleared of being 
Death Eaters thirteen years ago," said Fudge angrily. "You could have 
found those names in old reports of the trials!" 

Now, I see some problems with the bleeding hearts theory here, though 
they are not insurmountable I'm guessing. 

First of all, taking 1992 as COS, this is spring of 1995. 13 years ago 
was 1981/82. Voldemort fell October 31st, 1981. Correct? 

The next few months were spent rounding up people. The admirable 
ambush theory is too large and complicated for me to get into. I 
confess to not knowing when they were supposed to be ambushed, though 
I agree that it was bloody, showed Longbottom and Moody to be TOUGH, 
and absolutely DID happen, even if we never learn more about it.

But, I wanted to talk about the hypothetical second cell, the ones who 
 get off. 

Bagman is not evil, imho. Well not yet. I don't agree that he's a 
complete red herring. But I don't buy Bagman of Voldemort's inner 
circle yet. 

Now, Malfoy (and presumably Narcissa, from Fred and George's comments) 
plead Imperio. And it seems many follow his lead. One wonders who was 
supposed to be imperiusing them. Crabbe: "I was under Goyle's 
Imperius." Goyle: "I was under Nott's Imperius." Nott:"McNair." 
McNair:"Lucius had me under his Imperius." Lucius:"It was Voldemort. I 
swear it was. He also forced me to imperius my wife." Sounds fishy to 
me, but Lucius is  the "slippery friend." BTW, for those longing for a 
sign of Lucius being subtle and having SOME intelligence, getting off 
not only himself, but, as it seems, a whole load of people must 
require some.

Their trials were over by the end of 1982 with acquittals for all. 
>From that moment on they lead "respectable lives", eventually clawing 
their way back into decent society. You'll note that the World Cup is 
the first time Fudge meets Narcissa, which would negate my previous 
suggestion that Fudge goes to parties at the Malfoys'. No, I think 
they must have been shunned at first, and they've only just got back 
to where they were before the lapse with Voldemort. 

OK, what about the Lestranges, Crouch, and the mysterious fourth man, 
who we feel confident to identify as Avery. 

(Mrs. Lestrange is to be credited as taking off Moody's leg, as I 
understand it, at all costs, just because we feel that a woman should 
get a share of all the bloody action we've invented. Just kidding of 
course. There's no doubt Mrs. Lestrange did that and more. :-) (Can we 
work a Neville-memory theory in here?))

They did "talk their way out of Azkaban". It sounds like the Lucius 
Malfoy way of going about things, and Cindy did guess the Lestranges 
were in the Malfoy cell, where everyone seems to have been cleared, 
presumably because of Imperio. /me imagines Malfoy explaining to 
Crouch Sr. "And then he did it to me, so of course, I had to do it to 
him, and he did to her, and she did it to...." No, this barrel of 
monkeys theory is way too weak. Maybe Voldemort can imperio them all 
at the same time? /me is really wondering how they got out of it.

So, Avery was acquitted thirteen years ago, as Fudge tells Harry. But 
then, he gets "caught up" in the Longbottom fiasco, and it's off to 
Azkaban. Later, the bleeding hearts get him out. So, why tell Harry he 
was acquitted thirteen years ago, when he is was more notoriously 
acquitted at the most eleven years ago, probably shorter? 

And, does Harry have access to old reports of the trials, does 
Voldemort? That nice little piece where Dumbledore says Snape is a 
spy? V. could get over that, eventually, but it sure makes Snape a 
little more suspicious. Parents don't seem to know Snape was a 
death-eater. Perhaps sentencings and trials were public, but 
Karkaroff's plea-bargain attempt was private? After all, Harry only 
sees Rita Skeeter in the second scene. Yet, Dumbledore says he had 
"given evidence" already. In private too, perhaps.

All this is confusing, and may only help me to sort it out in my mind. 

Cindy wrote:
> We're now to the point of talking about ambushes like . . . like 
> there's actually some canon to support them or something! Wow!  Are 
> we all agreed that Snape arranged the ambush(es) to prove his 
loyalty 
> to Dumbledore?  Please?  Pretty please?

YES! 

Ambush scenarios follow, along the lines that "BLOODIER IS BETTER!"

> I know what you're thinking.  Karkaroff also names Rookwood, who we 
> know was still at large.  Ah, but Rookwood is the head of the 
> Department of Mysteries, making him, well, mysterious.  Why wasn't 
> Rookwood at the ambush?  It's because Rookwood had intelligence that 
> the ambush was going down.  There's *no way* the head of the 
> Department of Mysteries doesn't know what Longbottom and Moody are 
up 
> to.  So Rookwood makes sure not to show up at the meeting Snape 
> arranged. Rookwood probably tried to owl the other Death Eaters, 
but, 
> owing to the inefficiency of owl post, couldn't reach anyone in 
time.

Or Rookwood could have decided it was too dangerous to try to contact 
them, and washed his hands of them. I forget. Karkaroff has already 
been caught, right? 

Another problem. If Ludo Bagman is Ever So Evil, and in the Malfoy 
cell, why is he under Rookwood? Unless he acts as the link between the 
two cells. :-)

BTW, I object to Pettigrew being in the Malfoy cell. I think he's all 
by himself, unknown to the others. Still, if he's in a different cell 
than Snape, as you posited, it would explain a lot, and leave it not 
impossible. 

> Snape doesn't know about Pettigrew 
> because he's in the other cell, and Snape isn't even sure about 
> Malfoy. 

Thus, the start? He knows Malfoy's bad news, in many ways, but didn't 
know Malfoy was right in there at the top?

Had they never had a graveyard style meeting before?
 
Are there more completely uncracked cells around? 

> Yes, Avery most certainly was the head of the Department of Magical 
> Catastrophies (or maybe second in command) at a young age.  Why?  
Was 
> it merit or talent or proven ability?  Heck no.  Avery just knew 
lots 
> of people in high places.  If Snape can be a young head of house at 
> Hogwarts, Avery can head a department that doesn't do anything more 
> complex or important than clean up messes.

Percy was second in command of Co-operation at 18 or 19, and 
technically running the department himself. How about making Avery 
Percy's mirror, to add to all the other proposed mirrors? :-) Then we 
can have long discussions about whether Avery's fall is a premonition 
of Percy's, or whether the story will change this time around! 

He could have been in charge long enough to clear up the Sirius Black 
mess to Black's disadvantage, but eventually, he ends up being sent to 
Azkaban, and being rescued by the bleeding hearts. They let him back 
into the Ministry after that? If so, I would suggest he's in Bagman's 
department, and is now the new minister of Sports. (Fits partially in 
with the Bagman is Ever So Evil theory, which I dislike.) Fudge, as 
Cindy mentions is, DE or no, not the sharpest knife in the drawer. And 
Bagman insists on hiring Avery, poor wronged Avery. (But wait a 
second, I can have Bagman not evil after all. He feels sympathy for 
Avery, because he also was persecuted by Crouch Sr. !!) 

Now, Elkins suggests we'll meet Avery again and not know who he is. I 
don't see how we can work this, especially if Avery is in the 
Ministry, as Cindy insists. 

How about having Avery manipulate Percy? 

Eileen




From pennylin at swbell.net  Tue Feb 12 17:59:02 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:59:02 -0600
Subject: A Sirius Offense, Round 2 (WAS a Sirius Defense,
References: <a4a9s3+5v7s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C6957E6.2040703@swbell.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35078

Hi --

Well, first things first I suppose --

judyserenity wrote:

>> Penny, I get the feeling that it really matters to you whether people
>> like Sirius or not.  Why?

Oh, it doesn't matter to me whether people choose to *like* him or not. 
  I do like to offer up a solid defense of Sirius' character when it's 
called into question though -- putting all the sides of an issue on the 
table so to speak.  It allows people with less strongly-held opinions to 
perhaps be swayed one way or another.  But, no, I'm not out to convert 
those who openly dislike Sirius.  Like all lawyers, I like a good debate 
now & again of course.  <g>

So, back to the debate at hand:


> I also believe that actions speak louder than words.  (This is one of
> the reasons I think Snape isn't so bad; he says nasty things, but what
> we've actually seen him *do* isn't so bad.)

Really?  So, teaching his favorite student how to conjure a vicious 
snake as part of a duel with another student -- that isn't so bad in 
your book? (or do you argue that he didn't *do* anything, Draco did?)? 
What about tying up a fellow professor without waiting for explanations? 
  Threatening to kill Sirius in the next breath?  Those are more than 
words.  I would also posit that he abuses his position of authority time 
& again with his treatment of students, albeit through the use of mere 
nasty speech & threats.  I somehow think the effect of "I see no 
difference" when looking at Hermione's teeth was about equivalent to a 
slap in the face.  Anyway, I'm not so sure about Snape failing to *do* 
anything all that terrible; I think I must differ with you on that score.


  Ok, so Sirius answers his
> mail and makes some wise comments, but I don't see that as such a big
> deal.  Heck, for all we know, Snape has lots of penpals, whom he
> answers promptly, with sage advice.  Would that make you like him?

So, you think it's just being a mere "penpal"?  I really can't even 
think how to respond to that.  It's so obvious to me that Sirius 
genuinely cares about Harry (and Harry's friends).  It's also obvious to 
me that Sirius' "wise comments" as you put it are not the sort of thing 
he could just make up out of thin air.  In other words, I think the real 
Sirius has some moral grounding, some opinions about principles (not 
stooping to the level of the DEs) & values (how a parent should & 
shouldn't interact with their kids).  This, IMO, contradicts the 
Devil-may-care, self-centered Sirius that some people see.

> 
> Now, I will grant that Sirius shows real concern for Harry at various
> points (like, when he isn't choking him), as evidenced by your points
> 1, 4, and 5.  However, as I've said before, one thing that bothers me
> about Sirius is that he acts as if only his friends count, and other
> people don't.

Who?  Snape?  It's obvious that Sirius loathes Snape, but the feeling is 
mutual.  I see no other canon evidence though that Sirius runs 
rough-shod over everyone who isn't in his "inner circle."

> 
> Again, as I've said before, part of the problem is that Sirius (and
> several other characters) are written inconsistently.  The concerned
> godfather of GoF is a far cry from the angry knife-wielder of PoA. 
> So, whether you like Sirius or not depends on which Sirius you think
> is the "real" one.

I think you're quite right that the PoA Sirius is very different from 
the GoF Sirius.  But, my take has always been that PoA Sirius is, if 
nothing else, suffering from extreme stress (and IMO more likely PTSD). 
  GoF Sirius has had some respite -- he's taken refuge & gotten some 
R&R, had a few chitchat sessions with Dumbledore via owl post & had some 
time to reflect.  GoF Sirius is very different ... but he's the most 
recent Sirius we have.  I'm curious why you're willing to dismiss 
everything there is about Sirius in GoF simply on the basis of his 
conduct in POA when he was under extreme stress?  He does an outstanding 
job as Harry's godfather in GoF ... and I recall nothing in GoF that 
substantiates the notion that Sirius is self-centered or cares only for 
those who happen to be his friends.  In other words, we have a positive 
portrayal in the most recent segment of canon, after the character has 
had time to regroup & center himself from being imprisoned for 12 yrs 
for crimes he didn't commit.... seems to me that this *is* the real Sirius.

As I said when I jumped into this thread, it caught my eye simply 
because it was titled "Snape vs. Sirius."  As if a reader can only like 
one or the other, but not both; as if one absolutely must *choose* 
between the 2 characters.  I can't wait to hear Snape's backstory & I 
find him complex & interesting.  But, I also think he's a nasty 
loathsome *person* so far, and there aren't any real inconsistencies in 
how he's portrayed.  He's nasty & spiteful to his students 
cover-to-cover in all 4 books.  So, if choose I must, it's an easy choice.

Penny





From cindysphynx at home.com  Tue Feb 12 18:17:01 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:17:01 -0000
Subject: Would Edgy Lupin Crack?  (WAS Why Suspect Lupin? )
In-Reply-To: <a49jov+6jvr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4bm6t+kqdp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35079

Elkins wrote:

>There's *definitely* a dark streak to Lupin's 
> character.  He's got Edge, which is one of the reasons that I like 
> him so much.  

<snip interesting and irrefutable canon discussion of how Lupin has 
Edge, how JKR intends it to be that way, why this might suggest bad 
things about Lupin, and why his friends suspected him> 

Boy.  This "Lupin Has Edge" theory presents some problems for me.  
I'm used to defending Lupin against full frontal assaults.  He's a 
screw-up.  He's too perfect.  He's boring.  He's dishonest.  That I 
can handle.

What we have here is a sneak attack.  I can't really deny that Lupin 
has Edge.  That bit about how his wand use is described as "lazy" is 
particularly upsetting, because it could very well be a bit of 
foreshadowing that Lupin won't finish the series in quite the heroic 
way I imagine. 

I scoured PoA, and I couldn't find any canon to refute Elkins' 
theory.  So I must grudgingly concede that Lupin Has Edge.  

I have to draw the line, though, on the idea that Lupin's Edge is 
part of what caused his friends not to trust him and caused them to 
believe he was the spy.

The reason I'm not sold on that part of the argument is that I can't 
imagine Lupin's Edge causing any problems for Sirius.  Sirius would 
view Lupin's Edge as evidence of Lupin's understated manner, his 
inability to connect emotionally.  Sirius would think that Lupin just 
needs a good, stiff drink and ought to loosen up and live a little.  
Sirius wouldn't start to suspect Lupin, I don't think, based on 
Lupin's Edge.  

So what did cause Sirius to suspect Lupin and prefer to switch to 
Peter?  Peter, that's what.  It is reasonable to believe that Peter 
was in on the planning of the Fidelius Charm, at least in the last 
stage of it.  Peter was probably telling Sirius and James all manner 
of lies about Lupin, raising false suspicions, doing whatever he 
could to create discord and confusion in Dumbledore's camp.  After 
all, the less Sirius and James trust Lupin, the more they might trust 
Peter.  

As a result of Peter's influence, Sirius in particular started seeing 
Peter as the more reliable friend.  Then, when they learn there is a 
spy in their ranks, Sirius jumps to the conclusion that it is Lupin 
because of Peter's influence.  (It isn't very hard to imagine Sirius 
jumping to an incorrect conclusion, is it?).  Peter didn't even have 
to ask to be the SecretKeeper; instead, Peter made Sirius think it 
was all Sirius' idea, when in fact Peter had cleverly manipulated 
Sirius into doing it.

Debbie wrote (about whether Lupin would Crack):

> Lupin's another character who may have some weaknesses.  Though I 
> think his feelings for Pettigrew will see him through any attempt 
to 
> make him crack (and he's survived enough pain as a werewolf to help 
> ward off any Cruciatus attempt), is anyone worried that he didn't 
> have the guts to tell Dumbledore what he knew?  Can he be 
blackmailed 
> into cracking or has he learned his lesson?

Boy.  More subtle character questions about Lupin.  Initially, I was 
going to say "Of course Lupin would never Crack.  What?  Are you 
kidding?  He's Tough and Cold-Blooded."

But then again, one thing a person has to have so that they won't 
Crack is loyalty.  Lupin hasn't shown me a whole lot of loyalty.  
He's only in one book, and already he has betrayed Dumbledore's trust 
many times.  Every werewolf adventure was a betrayal.  Not ratting 
out Sirius was a betrayal.  Giving Harry the Map was a mini-
betrayal.  This leads me to the conclusion that Lupin is loyal, but 
not blindly loyal like Hagrid.  In the end, Lupin will do what he 
wants when he feels like it, regardless of Dumbledore's authority.  
(Dang, I hope Pippin isn't listening to this.)

So would Lupin Crack if he thought it served his own interests, and 
to heck with Dumbledore?  I don't think I want to answer that 
question.

Cindy (who can only explain "Crack" in a Schwarzenegger Action Movie 
kind of way, so she hopes someone else will explain it better)





From huntleyl at mssm.org  Tue Feb 12 18:40:06 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 13:40:06 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily's taste in men/Sirius Defence
References: <002601c1b373$8552eda0$2a0adccb@price>
Message-ID: <003f01c1b3f4$b117be80$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 35080

Okay *rubs hands together* just wanted to comment on a couple things.

 

JUDY SAID:
"It's interesting, I adore Snape and the thought of him in love with Lily 
doesn't bother me at all.  I figure, why is it Snape's fault if Lily had boring tastes in men, and went for bland jock James instead of brilliant, enigmatic Snape? *I* think Snape is extremely lovable, and if Lily disagreed, well, I'm obviously going to think she just doesn't know how to appreciate him."

 

James..a bland jock? *looks alarmed* The Head Boy? The top of his class? The prankster? The boy who spent the first part of his seven years at Hogwarts learning how to become an illegal animagi and the second part running around at night with a *werewolf*? The marauder, co-creator of the brilliant, infamous Marauder's Map? The guy everyone describes as *just like Harry*? Is Harry a 
bland jock, and, if so, why are we all reading a series about a bland jock, anyway?

 

James has never had a special place in my heart or been one of my favorite characters, however IMHO he has certainly proven himself to be both intelligent *and* willing to cross lines, break rules, etc. etc.  Two traits that, if nothing else, do not equal "bland". Semi-naughty, perhaps, but not bland.  Tut, tut.  Bad James. 

    

 

PIPPIN SAID:

"Sirius, for all his dead sexiness, leaves me cold. Yeah, he's got plenty of charm. I can't help feeling suspicious of someone like that. I've met too many people who use their people skills, well, the way Voldemort used to use his."

 

^_~ I can't help but think that both this view of Sirius and the previous thoughts on James are based more on reader desires and/or fanfic than canon.  Canon Sirius comes across as anything but charming to me.  I mean, in PoA he's deranged and homicidal, and in GoF - there's just no delicate way to put this - he eats rats.  Not that he hasn't been developing into a nice, fatherly, protective figure for Harry, but seriously, I don't think "suave" or "debonair" are appropriate adjectives for his character. 

Moreover, I think it is probably unlikely that he was ever very charming at any time - because, based on canon, this charm has never surfaced in his personality. Charming people tend to rely on that charm to get them what they want. It is their first reaction to any problem, yet we never see Sirius try to utilize charm to get himself anything. Did he really want to try win the trio to his side at the Shack? Nope, he was all "break the leg, scare the kids, kill the rat, make excuses later."

 

^_~ As a side note, I don't seem to remember Sirius as being described as "dead sexy" (or anything of that nature) in canon. ^_^ Not that I'm saying that he *isn't*, necessarily -I mean, in all fairness, we can't really expect Harry to notice these things and we *are* limited to his POV - but I do believe it to be important that we differentiate between what-is-canon and what-we-want. Of course, on this, I am a major hypocrite, I'm sure...*sigh*.

 

Anyway, I just don't know about Snape.  Believe me, I am *all* about going for the bad-but-well-don't-you-just-WANT-him??!!-guy (I.e. the vampire complex).  However, Snape just doesn't seem to fit into this category as far as I'm concerned. *grins sheepishly* Perhaps it's just because he's old and his hair is oily.  I guess I kind of like my bad-boys to be all pretty and virile. ^_~ Shallow of me, eh? *blushes*. Oh, gosh.

 

laura



P.S. I am *really* having trouble with the spacing/font size/paragraph placement, etc. in my outlook program.  So sorry if this post is unintelligible, plain messy, or the like. :(



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





From gideoner4 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 12 18:45:40 2002
From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (gideoner4)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:45:40 -0000
Subject: Prefects? was Re: Draco's marks
In-Reply-To: <16026432554.20020211175633@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <a4bnsk+r2l5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35081

Suzanne wrote:
> This brings up some questions:
> 
> Do we know how a prefect is chosen in the HP universe?
> 
> Does it have to do with getting good marks, or exemplary
> behavior or a combination of both?
> 
> Something entirely else?
> 
> And who does the choosing?


I think it's a combination of both grades and behavior. There was no 
explicit indication of how prefects are chosen in the HP universe, 
but I base this observation on Percy, who got excellent grades and 
stuck by the rules.

Draco Malfoy could become a prefect, because there is also no 
indication that he's a good or bad student. He's good in portions, 
but that's kind of not a basis because Snape is biased. But i 
deduced something from Book 2, from the following scene:


*** "I hope my son will amount to more than a thief or a plunderer,
Borgin," said Mr. Malfoy coldly, and Mr. Borgin said quickly,
"No offense, sir, no offense meant -"

    "Though if his grades don't pick up," said Mr. Malfoy, more
coldly still, "that may indeed be all he is fit for -"

    "It's not my fault," retorted Draco. "The teachers all have
favorites, that Hermione Granger -"

    "I would have thought you'd be ashamed that a girl of no wizard
family beat you in every exam," snapped Mr. Malfoy. ***

It seems that Hermione is the only one who surpasses Draco in terms 
of academics. Draco could have pointed out some other people who 
gets ahead of him academically, but he pointed out only Hermione. 
Besides, Draco is pbviosuly under pressure to do well in school, so 
I don't think that he'll be the type to be neglectful of his studies.

As for Draco's behavior, I admit that there's much left too be 
desired. But he's a Slytherin, and I hate sounding biased, but 
Slytherins are more or less like Draco Malfoy. Whoever prefect will 
be chosen from the Slytherin will most probably have a behavioral 
record like Draco--although Draco's greater fault is that he chooses 
to pick on Harry all the time. 
  







From mdawson.design at dial.pipex.com  Tue Feb 12 18:45:35 2002
From: mdawson.design at dial.pipex.com (Marjorie Dawson)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:45:35 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily & Snape???
References: <a44kfc+59ro@eGroups.com> <3C65EEE9.66AC888E@erols.com>
Message-ID: <004c01c1b3f5$760541e0$ad97bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 35082

 Hey to anyone reading this. I have a question about this whole Snape
> & Lily romance thing: Is this based on fact? Or are we just
> theorizing about the generation of the Marauders & gang? Just was
> curious.

 of 35 he's still stewing over the fact that James
was a better Quidditch player than he was.  Sexual jealousy,
OTOH, has a notoriously long shelf life.

It does?  I must try it sometime, in the meantime I shall watch developments with interest.  

I confess I had Snape down as *very hard done by* by someOne or someThing but had not (until LOLLIPOPS) thought of Lily Potter - OK call me slow if it makes you feel better!!  In the meantime, I shall re-read PoA as everyone seems to be discussing Sirius at the moment and I have only read the book twice (as I don't suppose the audio book counts as *reading*.

FR







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





From devin.smither at yale.edu  Tue Feb 12 19:16:27 2002
From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:16:27 -0000
Subject: SHIP: Problems with the concept of G/H
In-Reply-To: <a4bgvp+d4e8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4bpmc+rv0k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35083

*Devin rolls up his sleeves, prepared to stop any leaks he may find 
in the deck of his ship*



--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "heiditandy" <heidit at n...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uilnslcoap" <devin.smither at y...> wrote:
> > Now, onto my favorite pet topic of Ginny, the girl who will in 
> fact 
> > be at Harry's side, probably starting in Book VI (though it might 
> > start to show up in Book V) through Book VII if he dies, and 
after 
> > book VII married to him if he lives.  
> 
> Two things - one elfish, one completely personal:
> 1. Please don't say "in fact" unless you've managed to read either 
> Book 5 or JKR's private notebooks - please say IMHO, because that's 
> what it is. Or say "I Hope." Not "I know," as you don't.

Dear me, is it that much of an issue to you to see me exaggerate/brag 
a bit?  All right, I'll attempt to slacken off the old ego, but I 
still don't think it was a crime against humanity or anything.  I 
thought people would take it as sort of a mild joke.  Besides, then, 
when it turns out I'm wrong, you can laugh at my surety even more.  
This, I feel doesn't really need to be jumped on.  Everyone knows 
it's MHO because obviously I have NOT read Rowling's material.  It 
goes without saying.

> 2. Married? Can I borrow the Ewwww acronym for this? Can we get an 
> acronym which covers the issue of Why 16 Year Old Girls Should Not 
> Be Married Or Even Engaged Even in the WIzarding World - Ron's 
> birthday is March 1. Unless witches gestate for shorter periods of 
> time than Muggles, Ginny's birthday really can't be earlier than 
> February - you think it's a good idea for a girl who's barely 17, 
at 
> most, and more likely 16, to be married or engaged to a 17 year 
old, 
> just because when she was 11 she was posessed by the same Dark 
> wizard who tried to kill him when he was 15 months old? How is that 
> a basis for a relationship?

As Pippin already pointed out (thank you Pippin!), I'm presupposing 
an epilogue which JKR kindly notified us of.  Sorry I didn't make it 
more clear, but nowhere did I claim to have a marriage at 16/17 in my 
mind.  Certainly one would expect for studies (at the very least) to 
be finished before such a thing was undertaken.  No, no, epilogue 
marriage, not marriage in June of Book VII.  Now, how about (in terms 
of an actual set of things they can base a relationship on) common 
friends as a starter?  Admittedly, friendships among siblings isn't 
the best sign to point to, but Ginny also seems to get along well 
with Hermione when they are together.  Having common friends, I find 
in real life, is a common enough precursor to a romantic 
relationship.  You get along well with these mutual friends, and 
(although this isn't always true) you will probably, therefore, get 
on well, with each other.  Being the little (but not TOO little) 
sister of a best friend, I find in real life, is also a common enough 
precursor to a relationship.  I suppose that we'll just have to wait 
and see, but I think Rowling has set up some great romance fodder 
here, and I don't think she'll let my hopes/predictions down.

> 
> Perhaps my problem with this is that I am presupposing that the 
> posession ended completely when Harry stabbed the Diary. IN other 
> words, Ginny may still be affected by her memories, but she's not 
> still got a bit of Riddle in her. If there was, it would've been 
> something *he* left in there on purpose, in which case I find her 
to 
> be completely untrustworthy. 
> 
> Furthermore, the workings of curses, which in backfiring placed a 
> bit of Riddle into Harry when he was 15 months old (with a very 
> undeveloped brain compared to an 11 year old) seem to be very 
> different than the workings of the posession Riddle had over Ginny. 
> In rereading CoS, it sounds more like he used Imperio, and for only 
> very brief periods, when he needed her to do something. The pages 
> may've been treated - by him or by Lucius (aside: wouldn't it be 
> wonderful if it had been a potion created by Snape?) to compel 
> anyone who picked it up to read it, flip through the pages, try and 
> write in it. That's not the same as a curse which seems to rip out 
> someone's essence, which is what AK is.

Oh, you understandably mistook me here.  I suppose no ACTUAL remains 
of Riddle in Ginny (though I would completely understand if she 
worried such a thing were possible).  I merely believe that there is 
severe EMOTIONAL and MENTAL scarring created by both Voldemort in 
both H and G, with or without any possible magic lees swiriling 
around in the bottom of their brains.  I, unfortunately, find that 
similarly troubled pasts also lead to relationships in real life.  
Often, these aren't the most healthy.  Thankfully, I am discussing a
world of fiction where that probably will be touched on, but happily 
resolved if and when my pet theories become canon.

> 
> > My basic point of take-off for the H/G ship is in their common 
> bond 
> > in having encountered Riddle/Voldemort.  I note that it is not at 
> all 
> > the same thing to encounter Riddle as it is to encounter V.  Yet, 
> I 
> > say, the same person is certainly responsible for the worst 
> portions 
> > of each of their lives, and only they have come face-to-face with 
> > dear old R/V and lived to tell the tale recently.  
> Erm, no. 
> : points to Draco in the Forrest in Book 1. He saw Voldemort, 
> through Quirrell, drinking the blood of the unicorn - and he is 
> still alive and kicking. And of course a lot of death eaters saw 
him 
> as well, but I presume you're only including people who you presume 
> to be "good"?

Naturally, I am only discussing those I view as good.  I realized 
Draco had SEEN Voldemort, but I certainly don't consider that an 
"encounter" by any means.  You could also say that dear old 
Dumbledore met Voldy in Book I.  I'll expound on my definition of 
"encountered."  How about, in a proximity of within 20 feet, for more 
than 3 minutes total?  Will that satisfy you?  How about, someone who 
has actually had words spoken to them by Voldy/Riddle?  I think this 
is a rather silly thing to be debating, but I feel I should defend my 
view on every argument, no matter how semantic or petty.  One more 
thing, I view my point of take-off in their mutual encounter with 
Voldy in terms of PLOT.  This doesn't mean I view their entire 
relationship as founded on that.  It does provide a nice convenient 
place for them two of them together (ideologically) if and when 
Rowling plans such a thing to happen, I believe.  Ginny's a sweet 
girl, Harry's a nice guy.  Those are valuable qualities that I think 
each might find endearing in the other.
 
> Of course, there's also a whole school of thought that is convinced 
> that Ginny isn't really Ginny anymore, and has been mostly-Riddle 
> since the diary was destroyed. An interesting concept, IMHO, 
> although not one I'm sure I can accept as canonical - the 
likelihood 
> of JKR having Riddle "regrowing up" as a Weasley is just a little 
> too weird. But, maybe.

Don't buy this for an instant.  Have heard the theory, but I don't 
see a shred of canonical evidence to back it up.  She seems just as 
nice and sweet as ever.  Besides, wouldn't Dumbledore at least have 
considered this possibility?  Would he have let Harry give Lucius 
back the diary if he even thought with the smallest of his being that 
it was possible Riddle would be back?  Nope, wipe that theory off the 
boards.  Riddle's a memory, now not even preserved in a diary or a 
synapse of Ginny's brain.
 
> > I feel that their survival of these encounters 
> > shows a similar kind of fundamental strength, and a root in 
> > unbelievable stamina and kindness.  I was only more convinced of 
> this 
> > when I was reminded by Uncmark that Ginny both attempted to throw 
> > away the diary AND cough up the truth (under the duress of being 
> > controlled by the Darkest wizard of them all).  
> But what if she threw the diary away *because* she was controlled 
by 
> Riddle? Let me elaborate...
> Riddle says (p. 312, US edition) that "[f]or many months now, my 
new 
> target has been -- you." In other words, he'd set his eye on 
getting 
> to know Harry, getting access to Harry. Ginny had told him a lot 
> about Harry, and he wanted to meet him. 
 
 

The chronology we know is all from Riddle - Ginny stopped trusting 
> the diary and threw it away - and Harry, of course, picked it up. 
> This wouldn't've been very hard for Riddle to engineer when Ginny 
> started not trusting the diary - he could've told her to throw him 
> away, and then released his hold on her at a time and place where 
it 
> was possible that Harry Potter, who Riddle already knew to be 
> a "mystery solver" (Cos, p.313, US edition) would find him. But as 
I 
> said above, I only think that Riddle invoked Imperio, or a 
variation 
> of it, on Ginny when she was actually writing, and when the diary 
> was closed, she had more resistance to it. It would've been very 
> dangerous to have her under the compulsion to read it all the time 
- 
> too easy to get confiscated if she was using it in class. 

Fair enough, but I think your idea doesn't hold up in the end.  Ginny 
threw the diary away in a place where NO ONE was going to look for 
it.  In a toilet everyone knew didn't work, yet no one seemed to be 
troubled about fixing.  She snuck up to Harry's bedroom/dorm to get 
it back once she knew he had it.  Why didn't Riddle just kindly tell 
her under Imperio "Please put me in a place where you think Harry 
will find me" and then, after she accomplished just that, released 
his hold on her?  She could've put it among his things, in one of his 
drawers, anything, just as she snuck up there to get it back.  Seems 
silly of Riddle to ask her to put him in a toilet.  Happily, you seem 
to think that at least her attempt to tell what was going on until 
she was interrupted by Percy was brave.  I don't think she was 
constantly Imperioed, either, by any means, but it would still be 
VERY hard to do either of the things I view as brave that she did.  
Release a book that you seem to be magically drawn to, or try to 
explain what's been going on.  Really, what're you gonna say?  
"Sorry, I Petrified a bunch of people, killed some roosters, etc.  
Really, I think I must be going crazy.  Either that, or this book I 
found is doing something to me."  People would think you were nuts.  
In any case, I think her dropping of the diary was her own choice AND 
I think her attempt to explain was unbelievably brave.  I note also 
that you don't counter my belief that they have a common bond in 
stamina, understanding, and kindness (good bases for relationships if 
I ever heard any).  Thanks for that anyway.

 
> > I feel that for Harry's and Ginny's mutual 
> > benefit, their ship is best.  Only they will REALLY be able to 
> > comfort/soothe/understand each other when it comes to old Voldie.
> Why do you think Harry is capable of being comforting or soothing 
to 
> someone? He hasn't really done it in canon, although arguably his 
> entreaties to Ron to go out in search of Ginny are comforting in a 
> way - he's not especially good at empathy, IMHO. Furthermore, why 
> should a relationship be based on being able to comfort and soothe 
> your partner? Shouldn't it have a basis my matched temperments, 
> mutual interests, common goals?

Already discussed I think, mostly.  You're right, Harry probably 
isn't the best comforter in the world, but he's young.  He's got a 
lot of growing to do.  He never was raised in an environment where he 
would learn how to comfort.  Even mutual understanding is a kind of 
comfort, however, don't you agree?  Furthermore, I believe I've made 
clear that I view the EMBARCATION of their ship on these grounds as 
an interesting plot point.  I read these books for character and plot 
(not necessarily in that order) and I think it's just too interesting 
a plot point to date not to be touched upon to some degree later.  I 
fully believe their characters are also compatible, and Rowling 
(whose notebook I have NOT seen) will handle this just fine.
 
> > We need to see more development 
> > in her personally and character.  
> I agree completely - I do hope she grows as a character, but NOT to 
> be married off at 16ish! No offense to anyone who was married at 
> that age (and merely then dating the person you eventually married 
> doesn't count) but I think that especially where wizarding 
lifespans 
> seem to be about 75% longer than Muggle, this is a Bad Idea.
> 

One more thing, doesn't it seem to anyone else that in this world, 
marriages seem to happen pretty early and out of Hogwarts?  James and 
Lily were so YOUNG to be married and have a year-old child.  Arthur 
and Molly are a Hogwarts marriage.  I think Rowling has painted 
Hogwarts marriages in a positive light, but of course, in this world, 
you come of age at 17 despite the fact that you live an insanely long 
time.  Conflicts?  They'not mine, though, they're Ms. Rowling's.

So there, I think I have righted my ship to at least a degree.  Let 
the sails unfurl right alongside the HMS R/H and dear ol' LOLLIPOPS 
(even if they don't particularly want it there).  Fly, I say, let the 
canons roar!

Devin




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Tue Feb 12 19:25:42 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 14:25:42 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Mrs. Norris/Sorting WAS Lucius taking over, etc.
References: <002601c1b373$8552eda0$2a0adccb@price>
Message-ID: <005301c1b3fb$101a3240$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 35084

Some thoughts on Mrs. Norris a



TABOULI SAID:

"I want to know what happened to Mr Norris. I want to know why Mrs. Norris (apparently a cat) is such a crafty, baleful ally of Filch's, and why she shows up on the Marauders' Map, and why she's the only creature that Filch seems to call "my sweet" and care for enough to stroke and cry over when he thinks she's dead (instead of plot to torture).  I'm sure that Filch being such an anguished Squib and so determined to learn how to do magic must have some significance.  Could the cat shape be a curse Mr. Norris put on his cheating wife, which he maliciously set up so that it could only be broken by Filch himself?"



I think this is an awesome theory, except that Harry specifically sees Mrs. Norris show up on the map as..(dun dun dun) well, *Mrs. Norris*.  It seems as if the map generally gives the full name (or at least first and last names) of everyone it shows, even if they are in animal form, etc. (for example, Peter Pettigrew didn't show up as "Scabbers" or "Wormtail"). Therefore, Mrs. Norris should show up as "Sally Norris" or "Annie Norris", if she were indeed a human in cat form. The fact that "Mrs. Norris" shows up suggests that this is indeed, the cat's full - if weird - name.



Interestingly, I wonder what the map does when a woman gets married.  Since powerful magic transformations have no effect on the names shown on the map, it seems unlikely that a legal bonding/religious ceremony would have much effect on it either. I mean, it doesn't seem as if simply changing a person's legal name would fool the map, you see what I mean?  Therefore, a human "Annie Norris" mightn't show up as "Annie Norris" at all, but "Annie Smith" or "Annie Miller".


TABOULI AGAIN:

"It's an abusive childhood making him bitter and vengeful, it's being victimized in high school, it's being sorted into Slytherin and feeling alienated from the Good Side, it's joining the DEs and building up to a moral crisis, it's feeling marginalised and betrayed and self-loathing and jealousy, etc.etc.etc.!!!"

 

The "being sorted into Slytherin" comment really got me thinking.  It seems as if there is allot of sentiment on this list that the sorting is an inherently flawed system.  Most people express concerns that students are judged unfairly, or that they are not given the chances they deserve when they are sorted into a certain house.  However, there is one thing we must remember - the Sorting Hat is *not* some puny, biased human.  The students are not sorted according to how they act, how others perceive them to be, etc. etc.  They are, indeed, sorted by *who they are*.  In effect, no one "chooses" for them which houses they are sorted into more than who they are themselves, deep down.  A case in point is Neville, who has all the outward earmarks of a Hufflepuff (to the point of being good in Herbology, which seems to be the magic most associated throughout the books with Hufflepuff house. e.g. slytherin=potions, gryffindor=transfiguration, ravenclaw=charms).  I'm sure that his family, friends, and even he himself thought him bound for Hufflepuff.  Yet the Sorting Hat saw through all this to something *deeper*.

 

The point is, that someone who is in Slytherin probably *belongs* there, and is most likely happiest there, among people who are most like themselves on some innate level.  I have a hard time seeing Snape as disappointed with his assignment to S. House, neither do I see him feeling alienated or among the minority there.  Keep in mind that the qualities associated with the house (cunning, ambition, etc.) are all qualities that Snape has in spades - and are also NOT inherent "evil" qualities, to boot.  He would not have enjoyed being a Gryffindor anymore than Ron would have enjoyed by a Slytherin.  Or, imagine Snape in Hufflepuff - surrounded by cheery, friendly types - *talk* about bitter. ^_~ He would have been miserable.

 

laura 



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





From mdawson.design at dial.pipex.com  Tue Feb 12 18:36:19 2002
From: mdawson.design at dial.pipex.com (Marjorie Dawson)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 18:36:19 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: GoF paperback Edition
References: <a46t2b+h1sb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003e01c1b3f4$2acf37e0$ad97bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 35085

Hey Jennifer and all --

GoF will be on paperback in the states on Harry's next birthday, July 
31. Check it out:



Hang on said the innocent Brit - are you telling me that America doesn't HAVE a paperback edition yet (already, whatever....). 

Did I miss something - de we need to get emergency book parcels out?????????

FR


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





From gideoner4 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 12 19:26:28 2002
From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (gideoner4)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:26:28 -0000
Subject: Ron Going To The Dark Side
In-Reply-To: <185.3712f40.2999e1f2@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a4bq94+qhnd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35086

I'm also one of the believers that Ron could be good prey to 
Voldemort. I'm not saying that I think Ron would be evil. I like the 
Weasleys very much, and I hate to think that anyone could be 
potentially evil in the fmaily. However, I see Ron's character as a 
shadow to Harry's and Hemrione's. I suspect that JK enhances Ron's 
insecurities in preparation for Ron's temptation from Voldemort. JK 
seems to make Ron's low self-esteem stronge rin every book, the 
height of which of course comes in book 4. It's obvious from Book 
one, from the first day that Harry and Ron met, that Ron has a lot 
of frustrations in his life.

 *** "Five," said Ron. For some reason, he was looking gloomy. "I'm
the sixth in our family to go to Hogwarts. You could say I've got
a lot to live up to. Bill and Charlie have already left -- Bill
was head boy and Charlie was captain of Quidditch. Now Percy's
a prefect. Fred and George mess around a lot, but they still get
really good marks and everyone thinks they're really funny. Everyone
expects me to do as well as the others, but if I do, it's no big
deal, because they did it first. You never get anything new, either,
with five brothers. I've got Bill's old robes, Charlie's old wand,
and Percy's old rat."

    Ron reached inside his jacket and pulled out a fat gray rat,
which was asleep.

    "His name's Scabbers and he's useless, he hardly ever wakes
up. Percy got an owl from my dad for being made a prefect, but they
couldn't aff -- I mean, I got Scabbers instead."

    Ron's ears went pink. He seemed to think he'd said too much,
because he went back to staring out of the window. ***

Right form the start, I kind of pitied Ron. It doesn't help to have 
a famous boy-who-lived and the-class-brains-who-dated-a-world-famous-
seeker as best friends. Sure, the three friends love each other 
deeply and are loyal to each other, but Ron is a human being, and 
his insecurity surfaced clearer in book 4. 

***   "Listen," said Harry, "I didn't put my name in that
goblet. Someone else must've done it."

    Ron raised his eyebrows.

    "What would they do that for?"

    "I dunno," said Harry. He felt it would sound very melodramatic
to say, "To kill me."

    Ron's eyebrows rose so high that they were in danger of
disappearing into his hair.

    "It's okay, you know, you can tell me the truth," he said. "If
you don't want everyone else to know, fine, but I don't know why
you're bothering to lie, you didn't get into trouble for it, did
you? That friend of the Fat Lady's, that Violet, she's already told
us all Dumbledore's letting you enter. A thousand Galleons prize
money, eh? And you don't have to do end-of-year tests either. . ."
    "I didn't put my name in that goblet!" said Harry, starting to
feel angry.

    "Yeah, okay," said Ron, in exactly the same skeptical tone as
Cedric. "Only you said this morning you'd have done it last night,
and no one would've seen you.. . . I'm not stupid, you know."

    "You're doing a really good impression of it," Harry snapped.

    "Yeah?" said Ron, and there was no trace of a grin, forced or
otherwise, on his face now.

    "You want to get to bed, Harry. I expect you'll need to be up
early tomorrow for a photo-call or something."

    He wrenched the hangings shut around his four-poster, leaving
Harry standing there by the door, staring at the dark red velvet
curtains, now hiding one of the few people he had been sure would
believe him. ***

Harry insisted that he didn't have anything to do with the goblet's 
choice, but Ron didn't believe him. Ron only believed Harry when he 
saw how dangerous the first task was, and that Harry could really 
get killed, being an underage contestant.

Even Hermione explicitly and balatantly declared that Ron is jealous 
of Harry.
 
***  "Have you seen Ron?" Harry interrupted.

    Hermione hesitated.

    "Erm. . . yes. . . he was at breakfast," she said.

    "Does he still think I entered myself?"

    "Well. . . no, I don't think so . . . not really," said Hermione
awkwardly.

    "What's that supposed to mean, 'not really'?"

    "Oh Harry, isn't it obvious?" Hermione said despairingly. "He's
jealous!" ***

Hermione could not have said it better. Ron and Harry are friends, 
but Ron seriously doubted Harry's honesty. What I'm thinking is that 
Voldemort could brainwash Ron into believing that Harry gets all tye 
shots and that is unfair for Ron. I don't think that Ron will turn 
evil willingly. I think that he's a too loyal a friend. But if 
Voldemort lured Ron into believing that Ron is being shortchanged, 
Ron could be tempted. I dunno, this is just my two cents on the 
matter. :D

Ron has a fiery temper, and prone to oubursts, and excitable. I'm 
nervous about him. The fact that he's Harry's best friend make shim 
perfect prey for Voldemort. All Voldemort has to do is rub in Ron's 
feeling inferiority to Harry and everything could go chaotic. Human 
nature is dynamic; people change. I just hope that Ron will change 
for the better. 

There are a lot of things in the books that show Ron's insecurity, 
which I believe Voldemort could use. I think I'm going to point them 
out later in a separate post. I'm getting sleepy... :D Advanced 
happy valentine's day! 







From gideoner4 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 12 19:32:09 2002
From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (gideoner4)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:32:09 -0000
Subject: GoF paperback Edition
In-Reply-To: <003e01c1b3f4$2acf37e0$ad97bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>
Message-ID: <a4bqjp+rv7b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35087

Hey, I already have the paperback edition of GoF, and I'm not from 
Europe. And I have the first book's adult-version, cover-wise. The 
cover looks like the cover of some book Stephen King or Anne Rice 
would write.  :D

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Marjorie Dawson" <mdawson.design at d...> 
wrote:
> Hey Jennifer and all --
> 
> GoF will be on paperback in the states on Harry's next birthday, 
July 
> 31. Check it out:
> 
> 
> 
> Hang on said the innocent Brit - are you telling me that America 
doesn't HAVE a paperback edition yet (already, whatever....). 
> 
> Did I miss something - de we need to get emergency book parcels 
out?????????
> 
> FR
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From lrcjestes at earthlink.net  Tue Feb 12 19:55:06 2002
From: lrcjestes at earthlink.net (siriusgeologist)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:55:06 -0000
Subject: Sirius canon...dead sexy
In-Reply-To: <003f01c1b3f4$b117be80$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a4bruq+rela@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35088

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" <huntleyl at m...> wrote:
> 
> ^_~ As a side note, I don't seem to remember Sirius as being 
described as "dead sexy" (or anything of that nature) in canon. ^_^ 
Not that I'm saying that he *isn't*, necessarily -I mean, in all 
fairness, we can't really expect Harry to notice these things and we 
*are* limited to his POV - but I do believe it to be important that 
we differentiate between what-is-canon and what-we-want. Of course, 
on this, I am a major hypocrite, I'm sure...*sigh*.
> 
>  

Actually the "dead sexy" aspect of Sirius' character has not been 
expressed in canon, but was expressed by JKR.  This wasn't in an 
interview, but at a book signing one of the listees went to when GoF 
was first released.  I know the story by the listee herself (cannot 
remember her name at the moment...if you are still here...speak up) 
is in our archive somewhere, but will summarize here.

Listee was at King's Cross Book Signing and had a moment when JKR's 
attention was focused her way.  She called out to JKR.."Is Sirius 
supposed to be dead sexy?"  JKR seemed surprised at the question, 
smiled and said "Yes."

So in this case it's not a matter of what-we-want, although it isn't 
truely official canon either.

Carole
Who always thought it was the height of unselfishness that Sirius 
would prefer to live in a cave and eat rats to be near his godson 
rather than lounging on a beach somewhere sipping mai tais.




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Tue Feb 12 19:57:12 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:57:12 -0000
Subject: Prefects? was Re: Draco's marks AND Cracking
In-Reply-To: <a4bnsk+r2l5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4bs2o+5m1g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35089

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "gideoner4" <gideoner4 at y...> wrote:
> Suzanne wrote:
 
> Draco Malfoy could become a prefect, because there is also no 
> indication that he's a good or bad student. He's good in portions, 
> but that's kind of not a basis because Snape is biased. But i 
> deduced something from Book 2, from the following scene:
> 
> 
> *** "I hope my son will amount to more than a thief or a plunderer,
> Borgin," said Mr. Malfoy coldly, and Mr. Borgin said quickly,
> "No offense, sir, no offense meant -"
> 
>     "Though if his grades don't pick up," said Mr. Malfoy, more
> coldly still, "that may indeed be all he is fit for -"

Though nothing more is specifically stated below (other than that 
Hermione is getting better marks), I had always thought the above line 
demonstrated that Draco's grades were, if not bad, not THAT good 
either.

Yet, I'd bet anything they either picked up or plummeted from that 
point (that's how it works in real life), and since we see no evidence 
for the second, I'm willing to say Draco has pretty good grades now. 

>  Draco could have pointed out some other people who 
> gets ahead of him academically, but he pointed out only Hermione.

He picked the person whose mention he thought would make his father 
most sympathetic. Bad idea. Only made Lucius icier.
 

> As for Draco's behavior, I admit that there's much left too be 
> desired. But he's a Slytherin, and I hate sounding biased, but 
> Slytherins are more or less like Draco Malfoy. Whoever prefect will 
> be chosen from the Slytherin will most probably have a behavioral 
> record like Draco--although Draco's greater fault is that he chooses 
> to pick on Harry all the time.

Yes, that's unfortunately true... probably. If it isn't Draco, it 
won't be some yet unknown virtuous Slytherin (a relative of Avery, or 
is Avery really evil now?). 

Does it ever say who replaced Percy as the Gryffindor Prefect?

I'm going to guess that usually fifth year students don't become 
prefects, and that Percy was the exception. I mean, you'd have to have 
a lot of spunk to be ordering around people two or three years older 
than you. And we know Percy has that. When we left him, he was 
ordering an entire department of the Ministry of Magic around. For all 
you can say about his supposed lack of humour, he is talented.

So, I'm predicting no prefect plot developments in Order of the 
Phoenix. And then, in the next book?

I propose Ronald Weasley.

Yes, I know he isn't acting it yet, but in Harry Potter I tend to pay 
the most attention to throwaway lines that predict the future. They're 
usually solid gold. And Fred and George tell him that he's going to 
end up prefect, don't they?

Cracking

I don't think people understand what I meant by cracking. :-) This is 
especially confirmed when I see sentences like, "Percy would never 
crack because he's brave and loyal at the pinch" and, "The thing you 
need not to crack is loyalty", and "Harry would never crack."

Worse stil, some people seem to think I was attacking my beloved 
Percy's character. No, I wasn't. My family tells me that would be 
suicide. 

Cracking, as I conceived it, is not the same as darksiding, ie. 
joining the wrong side.

My example was the Lord of the Rings. Now those who haven't read the 
books and are planning to, or want to enjoy the next two movies when 
they eventually come out, just take it that "cracking" looks like 
"darksiding" but it's involuntary. The point at which you really have 
no choice but to do the wrong thing.

It's a shocking idea, and a lot of people rebel against it. For 
hundreds of years, in fact. But in this century, it started becoming 
more and more apparent that it's true. Tolkien wrote a letter about 
his book in which he mentioned that he had been inspired to explore 
the issue by the question, How far could you hold good, brave, and 
true people who were taken into the "penal" systems of our century's 
most brutal totalitarian regimes and come out with their minds broken, 
serving what they first rejected? 

You can take the hard line, and say, "To Azkaban with them" or you 
could be more understanding. (You can skip past the spoilers, if you 
like. I've got them all quarantined.)


LOTR SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



keep going down





keep going down






keep going down






At the end, Frodo says, "I do not choose the deed I have come to do. 
The ring is mine," and puts in on.

Absolutely horrible, no? 

Notice, does he CHOOSE not to put on the ring. Or does he NOT have a 
choice?

We have to finally conclude the second.



keep going down






keep going down





keep going down








SPOILERS OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!






So, when I predicted that Snape or Percy might crack, it was in no way 
a judgement on the strength of their characters. I meant that they 
seem most likely to end up in a situation where the necessary things 
can be done to them.

Eileen




From ftah3 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 12 20:09:45 2002
From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:09:45 -0000
Subject: Would Edgy Lupin Crack?  (WAS Why Suspect Lupin? )
In-Reply-To: <a4bm6t+kqdp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4bsq9+pdmq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35090

cindysphynx wrote:
> The reason I'm not sold on that part of the argument is that I 
can't 
> imagine Lupin's Edge causing any problems for Sirius.  Sirius would 
> view Lupin's Edge as evidence of Lupin's understated manner, his 
> inability to connect emotionally.  Sirius would think that Lupin 
just 
> needs a good, stiff drink and ought to loosen up and live a 
little.  
> Sirius wouldn't start to suspect Lupin, I don't think, based on 
> Lupin's Edge.  

I don't think Black would suspect Lupin based on Lupin's Edge, 
either.  I do think, though, that as Black and the other Marauders 
were Lupin's very close friends, while Harry Potter is simply a boy 
who has known Lupin as a good teacher, Black will have seen *more* 
than just the Edge that we see through Harry's interaction with 
Lupin.  What I think is that Lupin's Edge is more Lupin's Tip o' the 
Iceberg, and that it hints not at potential, but at actuality.  

So no, Black wouldn't have suspected Lupin simply because Lupin had 
an Edge.  Black would have suspected Lupin because as Lupin's close 
friend, he would have seen Lupin acting on that edge ~ saying/doing 
things that weren't entirely innocent.  Things that, during dark days 
and with a spy on the loose, could easily be construed as the 
words/actions of one who could be seduced to the Dark Side, so to 
speak.

Incidentally, I personally view Lupin as a good guy who probably 
won't crack (I say 'probably' because anything is possible).  Doesn't 
mean I find no fault in the character; and I actually like the 
character better for having a potential to be a greatly flawed being.

Mahoney




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Feb 12 20:13:35 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:13:35 -0000
Subject: Would Edgy Lupin Crack?  (WAS Why Suspect Lupin? )
In-Reply-To: <a4bm6t+kqdp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4bt1f+mmd1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35091

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

> I scoured PoA, and I couldn't find any canon to refute Elkins' 
> theory.  So I must grudgingly concede that Lupin Has Edge.  
> 
> I have to draw the line, though, on the idea that Lupin's Edge is 
> part of what caused his friends not to trust him and caused 
them to  believe he was the spy.
> 
> The reason I'm not sold on that part of the argument is that I 
can't  imagine Lupin's Edge causing any problems for Sirius.  
Sirius would view Lupin's Edge as evidence of Lupin's 
understated manner, his  inability to connect emotionally.  Sirius 
would think that Lupin just needs a good, stiff drink and ought to 
loosen up and live a little.  Sirius wouldn't start to suspect Lupin, 
I don't think, based on Lupin's Edge.  
> 
<snip theories about Pettigrew>

> But then again, one thing a person has to have so that they 
won't 
> Crack is loyalty.  Lupin hasn't shown me a whole lot of loyalty.  
> He's only in one book, and already he has betrayed 
Dumbledore's trust 
> many times.  Every werewolf adventure was a betrayal.  Not 
ratting 
> out Sirius was a betrayal.  Giving Harry the Map was a mini-
> betrayal.  This leads me to the conclusion that Lupin is loyal, 
but 
> not blindly loyal like Hagrid.  In the end, Lupin will do what he 
> wants when he feels like it, regardless of Dumbledore's 
authority.  
> (Dang, I hope Pippin isn't listening to this.)
> 
ROTFL!  Dang, if everyone starts agreeing with me, it will take all 
the fun out of this group ;-) Supposing I am right and Lupin's 
betrayals are prompted by his unconscious resentment of 
authority.  It's possible that after Hogwarts this feeling got 
transferred to Sirius and James, whom McGonagall calls the 
ringleaders of their little gang. That might result in unreliable 
behavior. Say Lupin agrees to babysit little Harry and "forgets" to 
show up. That'd get on any parent's nerves, plus they'd be 
wondering where dear Remus *did* get to. 

In addition, if Remus was in the closet with his lycanthropy, his 
friends might have feared he could be blackmailed. Plus it is part 
of my Sirius=Wormtail theory that Pettigrew was indeed feeding 
misinformation to the Inner Circle in the hope of misleading 
Dumbledore's spies.

Pippin




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Tue Feb 12 20:22:37 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 20:22:37 -0000
Subject: Why Suspect Lupin?  (WAS: Snape, Lupin's Mistakes Again)
In-Reply-To: <a49jov+6jvr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4btid+f87d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35092

This has got to be the most brilliant character sketch I've seen for 
awhile. 

/me notices the general theme. Elkins writes a post. Everyone gathers 
around and oohs and ahhhs. Don't let it go to your head. ;-) I'm 
jealous. I really am. And know that doesn't mean I will go to the dark 
side if Voldemort tempts me. 

Your post made me realize why it is that I love Lupin (and several 
other non-HP fictional characters actually, as well.) I couldn't take 
the line that I loved him because his strategic mistakes showed he 
wasn't perfect, as has been suggested so many times. 

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" <theennead at a...> wrote:
> Mahoney wrote: 
> > On another subject, has anyone speculated that as for Black having 
> > suspected Lupin as being the spy, there might have been some 
reason 
> > related to, I dunno, Lupin's personality that suggested it? I.e., 
> > something other than, say, general distrust of werewolves? 
> 
> <raises hand>
> 
> I have.  
> 
> "'They call it the Dementor's Kiss,' said Lupin, with a slightly 
> twisted smile."

And at that moment, I was crying, "Harry! Harry! It's Sirius Black! 
When will you realize?" "Slightly twisted." That is awful. 

Kudos to all your listings of the darker parts of Lupin, the parts 
that chilled on first reading, and still chill now. 

> Of course, you'd think that Sirius and the Potters would have known 
> Lupin well enough not to be dismayed by that sort of thing, 
but...you 
> never know.  Horrible things were happening.  I can easily imagine 
> how Lupin's breezy and off-hand manner when discussing, say, 
somebody 
> that the group actually *knew* having been tortured or murdered 
might 
> have given even his friends pause, particularly if they were already 
> becoming suspicious of him for other reasons.

Perfect. Sirius and the others know and like Lupin well enough, but 
there's already something instinctively dismaying about his manner, 
even when there isn't a war going on. I'd guess that Lupin has been 
the object of suspicions, great and small, since he was very young. I 
suspected him. 

> Even Lupin's compassion could, viewed in a certain light, make him 
> seem a little suspicious, because it's a compassion born of 
> sensitivity and insight, of the ability to "read" others, to deduce 
> other people's personal vulnerabilities and motives.  Lupin's very 
> good at that; it's what makes him a good teacher.  But that form of 
> sensitivity can also be a rather unnerving trait, particularly in a 
> paranoid situation, one in which there are *secrets* that must be 
> kept hidden.  On a certain level, an emotionally astute individual 
> *is* a spy -- he knows your secrets...or at least he makes you feel 
> as if he does -- and I don't think that it did much for the others' 
> sense of security around Lupin.  I think that his very sensitivity 
> probably made him seem suspect.

To "read" others..... I should probably shut up about Tolkien. But in 
Tolkien, we see the same trait being used evilly: to manipulate and 
wound people, by Denethor. And Lupin has the potential to be a 
Denethor. As you mention, he goes for the jugular with Harry. Knowing 
Sirius Black not to be a responsible mature character under all 
circumstances (coughs, was that polite enough?), I'm sure Sirius has 
seen a lot more of that side of Lupin than Harry. That might lead 
Sirius to be much more prone to see Lupin as the possible traitor. 

>Lupin really does know how to target the jugular, and 
> there are times when I get the definite sense that he's got a bit of 
> a taste for it as well.  He's not a sadist...but he could be, and 
> if he ever did go bad, I think that's exactly how he'd do it.  It 
> does come across as a "dark streak" to his personality, IMO, and I 
> can easily imagine how that aspect of his character could have made 
> him seem highly suspect.

I love this. Keeps Lupin good beyond good, but still makes him more 
intriguingly dark than Voldemot. I've got to hand it to you.

> -- Elkins, to whom never even *occurred* that others might find 
> anyone but Lupin the sexpot character of the older generation, and 
> who was shocked -- just shocked! -- to learn otherwise.  ("'Sirius 
Is 
> Dead Sexy?'" she read to herself, and then blinked in confusion.  
> "Sirius?" she repeated blankly.  '*Sirius?*  Is that...that's a 
joke, 
> right?"  Then she remembered the flying motorcycle, and nodded to 
> herself.  'Ah,' she thought.  'Okay.  I guess some people do like 
> that sort of thing.')  

I didn't get it either. I was so stuck on Lupin, that I couldn't 
believe people could talk that way about psychotic Sirius Black. (just 
joking, please don't kill me, Sirius Black fans.) 

> (We won't even get into her response when she discovered the 
Snape-Is-
> Sexy people.)

I started laughing very, very hard. I'm a LOLLIPOPS member, but I 
don't blame Lily for causing ire to pollute our poor Severus. 

An interesting thing, though, imho, is that plenty of people want to 
"run off" with Sirius or Severus, but quite a few have expressed hopes 
of "marrying" Lupin.

Now why would that be? Is it acknowledgement that neither of the above 
is stable enough to become that committed? ;-)

Eileen




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Tue Feb 12 20:52:42 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:52:42 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] anti-SHIP: Ginny griping
References: <a4bt1f+mmd1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <008901c1b407$370c2c80$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 35093

I have a confession to make.  *looks abashedly at feet* I am a closet Ginny-Hater.  Sorry to mislead you all for so long.  ^_~ Actually, "hate" is probably too strong a word, but I really dislike the gal.  In fact, I think people like her are the scourge of the earth.  *sigh* Alright, I just...she's SO..argh.  I just want to slap her sometimes.  *has to take a moment to curb inherent violent tendencies* She just has no *pride* you know?  Fawning over Harry and the like.  Furthermore, it is very likely that she *was* the sender of the singing-valentine (al la the singing get-well card), and I mean, I felt so incredibly ashamed for her just reading that.  Plus, she's giggling, immature, ..have I mentioned fawning already?

Although, to her credit, I do think she has improved greatly throughout the books.  Her actions in GoF in regards to the Yule Ball were almost dignified.  However, I can't like the girl.  Whenever anyone ships for her and Harry I get this awful feeling of dread.  I don't particularly like ships in general, and this one just...gives me the willies.

Another reason why I dislike her is because, in my mind, she is the anti-Hermione (who is my hero). I'm not saying that she and Hermione were/will ever be at odds, but she's SO...pre-teen-girly-esque, and Hermione stands for everything that is *not* of that particular mentality.  Of course, there was the whole Lockhart thing, but, seriously, did H ever let that get in the way of anything important? Uh-uh.  Hermione is courageous, determined, and intelligent.  Ginny has always come across to me as a silly little girl.  Devin described her as "sweet". WELL.  *takes a deep breath here and tries to calm down*  Sorry, I was getting a bit rant-y there. Anyway, being "sweet" is hardly a good quality.  Some of the "sweetest" girls I know could eat you alive with the bat of an eyelash.  They don't mean to hurt anyone, they just don't have the strength or the insight to take the right paths.

^_~ ahh, anyways, this is probably just another of my non-canonical based prejudices *sigh*..told you I was a hypocrite.

laura

P.S. And I bet she listens to Nsync as well !!!!!! erm...or, well..the wizarding equivalent. ^_^ heh. nevermind me.


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





From heidit at netbox.com  Tue Feb 12 21:05:37 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:05:37 -0000
Subject: SHIP: Problems with the concept of G/H
In-Reply-To: <a4bpmc+rv0k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4c031+4nkb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35094

Devi wrote: 
> Dear me, is it that much of an issue to you to see me 
exaggerate/brag 
> a bit?  
Erm. Didn't see it as braggadocia at all - just somewhat contrary to 
what the list's Rules say 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%
20Files/netiquetteTIPS.htm, "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownu
ps/files/Admin%20Files/netiquetteTIPS.htm") - and I think we've 
pretty much closed the subject on this.

Devon wrote:
> As Pippin already pointed out (thank you Pippin!), I'm presupposing 
> an epilogue which JKR kindly notified us of.  Sorry I didn't make 
it 
> more clear, but nowhere did I claim to have a marriage at 16/17 in 
my 
> mind.  

And I thought I'd made it clear in my prior post that I would find an 
engagement at that age to be equally Ewwwwwy. But again, that's just 
MHO. And I'm still unsure about how the epilogue is going to work, 
but I pretty much presume that it won't have anything in it that 
isn't at least clearly hinted by the end of Book VII. In other words, 
we might see, "And thanks to his wonderful efforts in support of 
Dumbledore and in protection of Harry, Sirius' case was reopened and 
he was acquitted." We won't see, "And despite the fact that they 
haven't had a one on one conversation since they left Moaning 
Myrtle's bathroom back in Harry's second year, he married Ginny 
Weasley because he wanted to get a wizarding family very very quickly 
and she was available." But based on canon as it is to date, unless 
JKR does something very expansive with Ginny, that's what such an 
epilogue would need to contain. 

And for those who would argue that "Ginny (Weasley) does have a 
bigger role in Book Five..." I have 2 questions:
1. Bigger than her role in Book 4, or in Book 2?
2. And if bigger than her role in Book 2, does that necessarily mean 
that her character will be developed more? IN JKR's world 
of "doublespeak", this could easily mean that yet again, Ginny sets a 
plot point in motion, or does something that furthers the overall 
plot of the story. Might she become more developed as a character? 
Sure, possibly, why not? But does JKR's statement 
(http://www.oregonlive.com/books/index.ssf?/books/00/10/al_11browl22.f
rame) absolutely mean that? Nope.
Devin wrote:
>  I suppose that we'll just have to wait 
> and see, but I think Rowling has set up some great romance fodder 
> here, and I don't think she'll let my hopes/predictions down.
And IMHO, I think she's not setting up a strong focus on the 
interpersonal romances, in contrast to the friendships. And in giving 
a romantic subplot to Harry as anything more than an ancillary issue 
runs the risk, for her, of lessening the focus on the friendships - 
the ones among the trio, and the intergenerational ones as well - and 
on the adventure and mystery that she's put into each book. Harry is 
about to go through hell - and as you said in your post, "He never 
was raised in an environment where he would learn how to comfort."

Actually, he was for about 15 months, but after that, he wasn't in an 
environment where he could learn how to *interact* in a familial way 
with *anyone*. While I do think that the first 15 months provided a 
good grounding for his resiliance in his day to day activities and in 
his *learning* how to have a friendship (although I do point out that 
Ron seems to be the first peer who ever *talked to him* like another 
human being, and he glommed onto that without ever really thinking 
about it - is that necessarily bad? No, and it's a natural way to 
make friends when you're 11 years old.) Harry still has a lot of 
growing to do before he's able to even consider a precursor-to-
marriage relationship. He needs, IMHO, to go on real dates and see 
what sort of person he relates to best - he needs to grow as a 
person - he needs to see what kind of companion brings out the best 
in him, etc. And if JKR makes Ginny into that kind of person over the 
course of the books, fine, whatever - but she hasn't done *anything* 
to do that to date, other than introduce Ginny as a female person who 
is at least 6 months younger than Harry. 

> Oh, you understandably mistook me here.  I suppose no ACTUAL 
remains 
> of Riddle in Ginny (though I would completely understand if she 
> worried such a thing were possible).  I merely believe that there 
is 
> severe EMOTIONAL and MENTAL scarring created by both Voldemort in 
> both H and G, with or without any possible magic lees swiriling 
> around in the bottom of their brains.  
So two emotionally and mentally scarred people make a good pair 
because they can provide comfort to each other? I'm sorry, but I am 
clearly not following this progression. Then again, of course, I 
don't agree with you that JKR's world is "fictional" in the sense 
that you mean - where the unhealthiness of interpersonal 
relationships can be ignored or transmogrified into coupled bliss. 
Perhaps she will deviate from her history of creating realistic 
characters in this unreal world, but I doubt it.

> Naturally, I am only discussing those I view as good.  I realized 
> Draco had SEEN Voldemort, but I certainly don't consider that an 
> "encounter" by any means.  You could also say that dear old 
> Dumbledore met Voldy in Book I.  I'll expound on my definition of 
> "encountered."  How about, in a proximity of within 20 feet, for 
more 
> than 3 minutes total?  Will that satisfy you?  How about, someone 
who 
> has actually had words spoken to them by Voldy/Riddle?  
Well, the former leaves out Diggory and Frank Bryce for that matter. 
The latter might leave out Diggory as well, as Voldemort spoke to 
Wormtail, not Diggory. But you're right - it all depends on how you 
define "encounter." Of course, I would guess that Draco hasn't heard 
the end of his flight from Voldemort (which I see as foreshadowing an 
eventual "fleeing" from Voldemort's side) but that's a topic for 
another post. 

> I think this 
> is a rather silly thing to be debating, but I feel I should defend 
my 
> view on every argument, no matter how semantic or petty.  
I can certainly start debating that way too. I didn't do it in my 
prior reply, though, but instead deemed my criticism of your argument 
about comforting and soothing to cover <<a common bond in 
stamina, understanding, and kindness>>. I don't see how they have any 
significance in determining whether Harry and Ginny are properly 
matched in a romantic sense. Cedric didn't fall off his broomstick 
when the Dementors approached - he managed to fly well enough to 
catch the snitch in a rainstorm. Cho screamed when she saw fake 
dementors in a match and didn't catch it. Putting aside his current 
post-living state, are you arguing that his resistance to the 
Dementors, versus what was at least her concern around them, marks a 
difference in their stamina and thus is not an indicator of an 
ability to have a strong relationship?  Are  you saying that 
Hermione's kindness to Harry in Book IV before the first task, in 
contrast to Ron's complete unkindness and lack of understanding for 
Harry, presupposes no romance between them? 

Or am I getting this wrong? 

> One more 
> thing, I view my point of take-off in their mutual encounter with 
> Voldy in terms of PLOT.  This doesn't mean I view their entire 
> relationship as founded on that.  It does provide a nice convenient 
> place for them two of them together (ideologically) if and when 
> Rowling plans such a thing to happen, I believe.  Ginny's a sweet 
> girl, Harry's a nice guy.  Those are valuable qualities that I 
think 
> each might find endearing in the other.
Might. Certainly might. Never argued against it. If a 
characterization is created for Ginny that is good for Harry, then 
sure, why not? I just feel that the arguments you've made, claiming 
that there's canon evidence for inevitability of such a relationship, 
don't fully consider or appreciate the effort JKR has put into her 
realistic characterizations. Ginny has been through a lot, and I 
think that to disregard all of that to make her into some nurturing 
fangirl for Harry to "romance" because he wants a family-in-name ASAP 
doesn't fully fit with the story that I think JKR is trying to tell.

> Don't buy this for an instant.  Have heard the theory, but I don't 
> see a shred of canonical evidence to back it up.  She seems just as 
> nice and sweet as ever.  
And 16 year old Riddle was as charming as anything. 
> Besides, wouldn't Dumbledore at least have 
> considered this possibility?  
Maybe he did. Do we know that he trusts Ginny? Molly didn't want her 
to go to the World Cup. Why? Overprotectiveness is understandable, 
given what she went through, but it doesn't bar the argument that 
there is something of Riddle left in her - possibly unfindable 
through wizarding means until Riddle wants it found. And it wouldn't 
be in the diary - I agree with you on that - it would be in Ginny 
now, not in the pages at all. Riddle said in teh Chamber that he 
could now leave the book's pages. What if he really did?


> Fair enough, but I think your idea doesn't hold up in the end.  
Ginny 
> threw the diary away in a place where NO ONE was going to look for 
> it.  
Actually, she threw it into a stall, and it just landed in the 
toilet. And what a stupid place to throw out a book! It's never going 
to get through the plumbing! What was she thinking? 
(Possible, theorizing) Answer: She wasn't. She was fulfilling the 
task Tom had set to her - leave the diary in the room where the 
entrance was. 
> Happily, you seem 
> to think that at least her attempt to tell what was going on until 
> she was interrupted by Percy was brave.  
I'm not sure she would've been able to, even then - but sure, why 
not? I'll concede that even trying was brave.

You sound as if you think I hate Ginny. I don't - I think she's got 
potential to do...something. I just don't know what. My problem with 
putting her together with Harry is that all the arguments I've heard, 
purportedly based on "canon to date", are unreal if not unreasonable.

Ginny reminds me of the Cinderella in Into the Woods. She's sweet and 
good and lovable to everyone on the outside, but inside, she's 
angsting about being that way.

Cinderella: What's the good of being good
  If everyone is blind
  And you're always left behind?
  Never mind, Cinderella,
  Kind Cinderella--
  [accenting each word with a twist of a strand of hair]
  Nice good good kind good nice--

She still goes forward and wins and marries her prince, but realised 
later on that it was only to get out of her father's house, that she 
was seduced by a dream and not by reality, and that she needed to go 
off and do some growing up on her own. Ginny needs to grow into 
herself, and if she ends up in a romance with Harry in Book 5 or even 
in Book 6, she'll never do it. She's too much of a fangirl - even you 
said that to go to the Yule Ball with Harry would be a "dream date" - 
and if she doesn't get a chance to grow up in, IMHO, books five *and* 
six, there's no way that any romance with Harry could have a glimmer 
of realism. But if you want to create a predictive gloat, I'll give 
you mine: Ginny in Book 7 will bear little resemblance to the person 
you've characterised in your two posts so far today.

> "Sorry, I Petrified a bunch of people, killed some roosters, etc.  
> Really, I think I must be going crazy.  Either that, or this book I 
> found is doing something to me."  People would think you were 
nuts.  
Well, possibly, but there would've been evidence tying her to the 
actions. And someone might've been able to get the diary to admit to 
it - who knows the limits of magic on something like that. There are 
ways of magic that even Hermione doesn't understand - if you can make 
an animagus reveal his human form, surely there's some way the 
grownups know of to at least force a diary to show that it writes 
back. 

> Already discussed I think, mostly.  You're right, Harry probably 
> isn't the best comforter in the world, but he's young.  He's got a 
> lot of growing to do.  He never was raised in an environment where 
he 
> would learn how to comfort.  Even mutual understanding is a kind of 
> comfort, however, don't you agree?  
Possibly, possibly not. But codeoendency might feel nice for some 
time, although it isn't healthy in the long run. But I've already 
said my piece on "healthy" (see above) and you've said yours, IIRC.

> Furthermore, I believe I've made 
> clear that I view the EMBARCATION of their ship on these grounds as 
> an interesting plot point.  
Oh, it could be. Again, sure, why not? Lots of things could be 
interesting plot points, and I certainly cannot suppose what sort of 
plot twists JKR has planned for us. But to some extent, it feels like 
you're contradicting yourself here - you said in your first post that 
you predict eventual marriage. Here you say, I think, that the start 
of a relationship would make an interesting plot point. I don't see 
these as coexisting, but I am sure you do. 

> One more thing, doesn't it seem to anyone else that in this world, 
> marriages seem to happen pretty early and out of Hogwarts?  James 
and 
> Lily were so YOUNG to be married and have a year-old child.  
Well, no, not necessarily. What do we know about ages? We know that 
JKR has said that Snape is 36 (or possibly 37) - but it's unclear 
whether that's in PS or in GoF, or after. If it's in PS, then James 
was about 25 when Harry was born. If it's in the begining of GoF, 
then he was 22. It's easy to meet and marry within a year and have a 
baby 10 months later. Even if you take the 22-age, then they may've 
been 20 or even 21 when they were wed. That's young, to be sure, but 
it's not the same as 17 or even 18. Every year is...a year. Also, we 
do not have canon evidence at this point that Lily was the same year 
as James. IMHO, she wasn't, because the Brits have told me that it's 
unusual for a Head Boy and Head Girl to be from the same house, and 
JKR's told us they were both Gryffindors. 

Yes, Arthur and Molly were together at school but again, we don't 
know if they were the same year, or in what year their relationship 
started, or how. All matters of speculation, and not really enough to 
make a universal declaration. 

> Arthur 
> and Molly are a Hogwarts marriage.  I think Rowling has painted 
> Hogwarts marriages in a positive light, but of course, in this 
world, 
> you come of age at 17 despite the fact that you live an insanely 
long 
> time.  Conflicts?  They'not mine, though, they're Ms. Rowling's.
Well, Muggles in the UK can drink at 16, the age of consent is 16, 
and many people leave school at 16 to go into a trade. It's not as 
unusual as it is in the states. Even in the US, you "come of age" at 
18. To a certain extent, "coming of age" is an amorphus concept, and 
I'm not willing to say emphatically that "it means this" or "it means 
that" until JKR defines it. 

heidi




From meboriqua at aol.com  Tue Feb 12 21:09:15 2002
From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:09:15 -0000
Subject: Ron Going To The Dark Side
In-Reply-To: <185.3712f40.2999e1f2@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a4c09r+47ao@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35095

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., heidi.h.tandy.c92 at a... wrote:
 
> I am not sure that Ron is permanently stuck on the Side of the Good>
and
 >I worry that Ron is either going to do something very damaging to 
> Harry (and Hermione, too) or that he's already evil, having been 
corrupted somehow by the influence of his rat.>

While I agree with you, Heidi, that Ron is not necessarily Good all 
the way, I don't quite see him as turning evil either.  I think it may 
be more complicated than that.  I like the idea of Scabbers having 
influenced Ron, though.  :-)

I see Ron mostly as weak.  In JKR's wizarding world, weak is a bad 
thing to be.  Ron cannot fight the Imperius Curse (baaaaaad sign).  He 
is influenced by others - by believing werewolves and giants are 
simply Bad without real evidence, and by always letting Draco get the 
best of him.  He feels lost at times in his own family, and would like 
nothing more than to be Famous Ron Weasley the way his best friend is 
Famous Harry Potter.  He is, as of late, often dominated by feelings 
of jealousy.  

I am not saying that I don't like Ron, but I think the things I 
mentioned above can be a dangerous combination.  I can see Ron being 
controlled by another.  I can see Ron making poor decisions (just as 
many of us worry Percy will do) and I can see Ron letting his temper 
get the best of him in a situation where it is imperative for him to 
keep his head.  Any of these things could result in a Dark Wizard 
finding out plenty of information about Harry or Hogwarts or 
Dumbledore, which would make Voldemort's job easier.  Will Ron regret 
what he might do?  Certainly.  However, I can see him causing a great 
deal of damage just the same, and not because he is Evil; it is 
because he is weak.

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




From pennylin at swbell.net  Tue Feb 12 21:21:25 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:21:25 -0600
Subject: ADMIN: Denoting Opinions & Beliefs (versus canon facts); SHIP:
 Problems with the concept of G/H
References: <a4bpmc+rv0k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C698755.5020909@swbell.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35096

Hi all --

A brief ADMIN note on the subject of distinguishing one's opinions or 
hopes or beliefs from *facts.*  We do in fact strongly encourage and 
advise people to do this.  It's easy to add in a quick "IMO" or "I 
think" or "I believe" or "I hope."  Please don't assume that others will 
"know" that you're joking or making assumptions or stating opinions. 
Make it very clear!

When things are stated as bare fact (when in fact it was merely the 
poster's opinion or something the poster picked up in a fanfic), we 
expect that the statement came from canon or from JKR's pen or mouth. 
If you're quoting JKR, it's also extremely advisable to get the wording 
right & state your source (i.e., the Scholastic chat from Oct 2000).  If 
you don't, you can expect that any number of the regulars here will 
chime in & demand to know your source (and/or tell you that you've got 
the quote wrong).

Heidi wrote:

 
>  > 2. Married? Can I borrow the Ewwww acronym for this? Can we get an
>  > acronym which covers the issue of Why 16 Year Old Girls Should Not
>  > Be Married Or Even Engaged Even in the WIzarding World

I'll join that one!  More later on why I still can't understand this 
widespread but as-best-I-can-tell-unsubstantiated assumption that 
witches & wizards marry early and that all Hogwarts match-ups end up in 
marriage shortly after the couple leaves Hogwarts.

Devin wrote:


>Admittedly, friendships among siblings isn't
> the best sign to point to, but Ginny also seems to get along well
> with Hermione when they are together.  Having common friends, I find
> in real life, is a common enough precursor to a romantic
> relationship.

Yeah, except that the Trio actively & affirmatively excludes Ginny so 
far.  This might change in OOP, but for now, your theory is based on 
possibility rather than reality.  Ginny isn't part of the Trio.

> and see, but I think Rowling has set up some great romance fodder
> here, and I don't think she'll let my hopes/predictions down.

Ah, but some of us will be disappointed; JKR can't please *all* the 
shippers I don't think!  She would have to be a true magician to write 
something that made all the shippers happy on some level.  <g>

> 
Devin wrote:
>  > > My basic point of take-off for the H/G ship is in their common
>  > bond
>  > > in having encountered Riddle/Voldemort.  I note that it is not at
>  > all
>  > > the same thing to encounter Riddle as it is to encounter V.  Yet,
>  > I
>  > > say, the same person is certainly responsible for the worst
>  > portions
>  > > of each of their lives, and only they have come face-to-face with
>  > > dear old R/V and lived to tell the tale recently. 

Ginny didn't really come face-to-face with Riddle though.  "The last 
thing I remember was him coming out of the diary," she told Harry.  She 
was *unconscious* during the entire scene in the Chamber.  I've never 
bought this as a bond worthy of cementing a romantic relationship 
between Harry & Ginny (or as a starting point).  It's not like Ginny 
*did* anything to assist Harry .... Harry saved her life (so there's a 
bond on *those* grounds), but it's not like feisty little Ginny took on 
Riddle, fighting alongside Harry.  <g>


> I note also that you don't counter my belief that they have a common bond in
> stamina, understanding, and kindness (good bases for relationships if
> I ever heard any).  

Stamina?  She succumbed completely in the Chamber.  Understanding and 
kindness?  Lots of people are understanding listeners & kind 
individuals.  IMHO, we don't know enough about Ginny to judge what sort 
of partner she might be for Harry.  All we know is she has puppy love or 
a crush on him; he, by contrast, has never given her a second glance.


> One more thing, doesn't it seem to anyone else that in this world,
> marriages seem to happen pretty early and out of Hogwarts?  James and
> Lily were so YOUNG to be married and have a year-old child.

How do you know how old they were when they married?  How old they were 
when they had Harry?  Did they date anyone else or were they Hogwarts 
sweethearts who married shortly after finishing their studies?  Did they 
date at Hogwarts, break off & then get together several years after they 
left Hogwarts (both having dated others in the interim)?  We don't know 
any of these things for certain.

> Arthur and Molly are a Hogwarts marriage.

Again, we don't know if they only dated each other at Hogwarts, we don't 
know if they dated others after they left Hogwarts, we don't know when 
they married each other.  Too many unknowns!

Penny




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Tue Feb 12 22:25:17 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:25:17 -0000
Subject: A Sirius Offense, Round 2 (WAS a Sirius Defense,
In-Reply-To: <3C6957E6.2040703@swbell.net>
Message-ID: <a4c4od+109vg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35097

Penny, I'm afraid I just don't have the time to reply to 
everything you said.  You brought up some good points about Snape's 
nastiness.  For the past week or so, I've been wanting to do a post 
with some of my ideas about Snape, and I hope to get to that soon.  
For now, I'll stick to Sirius.

Penny said:
> I think you're quite right that the PoA Sirius is very different 
> from the GoF Sirius.  But, my take has always been that PoA Sirius 
> is, if nothing else, suffering from extreme stress (and IMO more
> likely PTSD). GoF Sirius has had some respite -- he's taken refuge
> & gotten some R&R, had a few chitchat sessions with Dumbledore via 
> owl post & had some time to reflect.  GoF Sirius is very different 
> ... but he's the most recent Sirius we have.  I'm curious why you're
>  willing to dismiss everything there is about Sirius in GoF simply 
> on the basis of his conduct in POA when he was under extreme stress? 

OK, it looks like we agree that Sirius behaves quite differently in 
PoA than in GoF. As you say, the basis for my judgment of Sirius is 
his PoA behavior, while yours is his GoF behavior.  You see a 
concerned godfather; I see, well, if not a crazed knife-wielder, at 
least an impulsive guy who puts others at risk and has contempt for a 
lot of people (not just Snape -- I'm thinking, for example, of Sirius' 
reasons why Peter would be a good secret-keeper.)

Why do I weight his PoA behavior more than his Gof behavior?  Ok, that 
is a fair question.  And my answer is -- because Sirius is an 
important character in PoA, and not in GoF.  Heck, he's the central 
character in PoA (other than Harry); the book is even named for him.  
He really plays no role in the plot in GoF.  I basically just gloss 
over everything Sirius does in GoF, because it's the plot that matters 
to me, and he isn't really in it. Now, if Sirius was a real person, 
this would be unfair, but since this is literature, I can't hurt 
Sirius' feelings, or send him to Azkaban unfairly, or anything, so 
it's OK.

You see PTSD as the answer why Sirius behaves differently in PoA than 
GoF.  I don't; I don't see any explanation for it.  He's sending Harry 
fatherly advice just a month or two after he tried to choke him.  I 
think he's just plain written inconsistently.  Maybe that's another 
reason why I just can't get into Sirius -- he's not a believable 
character. 

Penny also said:
>I see no other canon evidence though that Sirius runs 
> rough-shod over everyone who isn't in his "inner circle."

Hmm, I talked about this a while ago; it should still be in the 
archives.  I don't want to go over the same ground again. 


Penny added:
> As I said when I jumped into this thread, it caught my eye simply 
> because it was titled "Snape vs. Sirius."  As if a reader can only 
> like one or the other, but not both; as if one absolutely must 
> *choose* between the 2 characters. 

Ah, that is very interesting.  I think maybe we have a 
misunderstanding here.  Originally, the thread was entitled something 
like "Sirius and Snape", but everyone replying seemed to like one or 
the other, not both.  So, I changed the title to "Snape vs. Sirius" 
because I thought it better reflected the thread's content, and I 
thought it was funny that fans' opinions mirrored the conflict in the 
book. It was just in fun. I certainly didn't mean that fans can't like 
both, or that I want the two characters to go on being enemies, or 
anything. In fact, as I said in an earlier post, I'm not just a fan of 
Snape's. I'm a huge Lupin fan, too, despite Snape's antipathy towards 
Lupin in the books.  (Alas, I have not had time to respond to the 
anti-Lupin slander, some of it very creative, that apears in the "Why 
Suspect Lupin?" thread.) It would be nice if Lupin and Snape would 
resolve their differences in the next three books. (On the OT-Chatter 
list, I had a non-serious ship post in which Lupin and Snape became 
lovers.) Obviously, I don't like both Snape and *Sirius*, but we've 
had quite a few people here say that they do. 

-- Judy




From devin.smither at yale.edu  Tue Feb 12 22:39:35 2002
From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:39:35 -0000
Subject: Apologizing WAS Re: RE:SHIP: Problems with the concept of G/H
In-Reply-To: <a4c031+4nkb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4c5j7+n920@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35098

Whoa.  Whoa.  Okay, I'm really sorry.  I've actually made people 
upset.  That is NOT what I intended to do, not even in the 
slightest.  I'm really, really sorry.  I, personally, am not even 
slightly ticked, but I can definitely feel ire in a couple things 
here.  I'm very sorry stubbornly (even blindly) sticking to my own 
view is what's doing that.  I did not mean to cause anger or 
confusion or anything like that.  I'm sorry I didn't put IMOs in the 
proper locations.  I'm sorry that I probably "sarcasticized" a couple 
of things when it wasn't necessary.  It's supposed to be fun, right?  
I apologize profusely to whoever deserves it from me.

I'm gonna go ahead and raise a white flag on just about every issue.  
I jumped in half-cocked on quite a few things, unprepared, and I 
admit that.  While I really DO want to defend my point of view on a 
couple of things (I still don't think Ginny threw the diary away on 
Riddle's orders...I did NOT mean that Rowling would portray her 
characters in an unrealistic way...and I DON'T think Ginny and Harry--
IF they are ever a couple--would announce an engagement in Book VII's 
August-June of seventh year time frame), I really think I should just 
let tempers cool before I even start to do that.  I also just want to 
say that although I am relatively (RELATIVELY) certain that IF there 
is a Harry ship at all, it will be with Ginny, I never declared 
certainty on either issue.  (It's probably about 50% there will be a 
Harry ship at all, 75% it's with Ginny if so)  I even said the joke's 
on me if I turn out to be wrong.  Please forgive me, once more, if 
you thought I was just butting my head against the wall like a 
pouting child going, "No, no, NO, I'M RIGHT!!!"  That wasn't my frame 
of mind, and I'm really sorry.

This board is mostly about speculation, yes?  Canonized, backed-up 
speculation?  I don't think I've done too much of anything that was 
utterly unsupported by canon.  I'm sorry if you disagree, or think 
I'm extrapolating too much, but I don't think any of my arguments 
were utterly without foundation (well, all right, maybe my assumption 
about Harry's parents' age, which I figured to be about 21, 22, 23 at 
the time of Harry's birth--and the nature of their relationship at 
Hogwarts, but the way they are described as Head Boy and Girl, among 
other things, sounds as though they were a couple even then, though 
that is my opinion).  If people are going to get cranky when I get 
too enthusiastic about a certain issue, and then bite my head off, 
I'm not so sure I want to voice my opinions.  Maybe you think that's 
a good thing, that we'd be better off without my opinions, but I 
would never jump on someone who was brimming with enthusiasm over any 
part of Harry Potter.  I consider true enthusiasm for these books to 
be in pretty limited demand, and I wouldn't get actually upset with 
anyone who liked them the way I do.  Debate is valuable; utter 
censure is not.

So, ANYWAY, I'll just say that, based on my readings of novels (and 
certain, more serialized forms of literature), I see Ginny as highly 
foreshadowed to develop into something much more important than she 
is in the books right now.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I can 
be declared in the wrong irrevocably as of today.  I think it's 
within what has been discussed on this board as canonical possibility 
and is encouraged by my understanding of how literature and plot 
works.  I hope we can agree on that.

I'm gonna go study for two midterms I have tomorrow.  Shakespeare: 
Script to Screen, and Econ: Industrial Organization.  I hope your 
tomorrow is better than mine is going to be.

Devin




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Feb 12 22:51:04 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:51:04 -0000
Subject: SHIP: Problems with concept of G/H
In-Reply-To: <3C698755.5020909@swbell.net>
Message-ID: <a4c68o+gngd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35099

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce <pennylin at s...> wrote:

> Devin wrote:
> 
> 
> >Admittedly, friendships among siblings isn't
> > the best sign to point to, but Ginny also seems to get along 
wellwith Hermione when they are together.  Having common 
friends, I find in real life, is a common enough precursor to a 
romanticrelationship.
> 
> Yeah, except that the Trio actively & affirmatively excludes Ginny 
so  far. 

Not the Trio-just the boys. Hermione breakfasts with Ginny and 
confides in her about  Krum. The only time she warns Ginny off 
it's because they're discussing Sirius. That's understandable, 
since  it isn't Hermione's secret to tell.  Ron doesn't care to have 
his kid sister hanging around, and Ginny respects that. Good for 
her. I admit Harry has shown zero romantic interest in Ginny so 
far. But it took three and a half books for Ron to display a 
romantic interest in Hermione. Is any one going to argue that he 
doesn't have one? 

I get the feeling people don't like H/G because it's too simple. 
Harry notices one day that Ginny's not a sweet little kid any more 
and boom! so where's the conflict? But I have a feeling that it 
could end up more complicated than that. The Weasleys  are 
very aware of their pureblood status, and some of their 
comments about Muggles are a bit condescending. It could be 
Molly and Arthur aren't  quite as open-minded as they think they 
are.  It's one thing to welcome a Muggleborn into your home and 
quite another to have one join the family. What if Ron reveals his 
affection for Hermione and his parents try to break it up? That 
would create plenty of problems for both Ships, plus tie into the 
theme of prejudice better than a  romantic triangle.

  I have a feeling that Harry and Ginny will end up facing danger 
side by side at some point. Perhaps Ginny will save Harry's life 
and pay back her debt. And if fighting a twelve -foot mountain troll 
together is enough to forge a lasting friendship, among people 
who rather despised each other a few moments before, then 
facing Voldie ought to do the trick, don't you think? 

Pippin




From slytherin_daughter at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 12 23:04:56 2002
From: slytherin_daughter at hotmail.com (slytherin_daughter)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 23:04:56 -0000
Subject: SHIP: Problems with the concept of G/H
In-Reply-To: <a4c031+4nkb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4c72o+n5vf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35100

First off, let me state some facts, so we can get what my opinion is 
out of the way: I'm a H/G shipper. I ship for a Harry/Ginny romance 
taking place after canon ends. I believe Ginny is a very interesting 
character, and I believe she has a lot of potential to do any number 
of things.

Right, let's get to it, then.

Devin said: 
<<I 
believe Rowling has said Ginny will play a bigger part in OotP, and I 
think this foreshadows her culmination into a driving force in 
Harry's life. Some think it's because Ginny is doomed in OotP. To 
them I say...feh. I really don't think this is possible. Pit her 
against Riddle, show her obvious strength and love...then kill her 
off in Book V. Nope, not a satisfying story arc.>>

Well, maybe not to *you*, it isn't. While I disagree that we've seen 
any obvious strength and love, I do think that killing Ginny off in 
OoTP would be a bit pointless; we've hardly seen any characterization 
for her at all, so doing her in would have about as much impact as 
killing off Cedric did. As of now, Ginny is basically a non-
character. Walking scenery, if you will. I doubt OoTP will be the end 
of her simply for that reason, but I think it's fairly silly to say 
that she'll be spared because of anything that's actually happened in 
canon.

D:
<<Nope, wipe that theory off the 
boards. Riddle's a memory, now not even preserved in a diary or a 
synapse of Ginny's brain.>>

I urge you to phrase these kinds of statements differently. It's 
still a theory, whether or not you agree with it, and you don't sound 
terribly accepting of other people's opinions if this is how you deal 
with thoughts that differ from your own.

Still Devin:
<< Another thing, Cho will be around 
one more year in OotP, and I think it's necessary to show Harry's 
relinquishment of this crush (which probably is slightly hampered by 
his involvement in her recent boyfriend's/love's/good 
friend's/whatever's death) before he can move on the next year into 
any sort of successful romantic relationship. I also think 
Ron's/Hermione's inevitable hook-up is good in that it isolates Harry 
even more in a story about Harry's isolation, his loneliness, his 
solitude. Add it up, and Ginny and Harry are each other's comfort in 
a cruel, Voldemort-terrified world. How this will effect the 
chemistry between HRH is difficult to analyze, but I think Rowling 
can do it with grace.>>

Using the blithe discounting of other ships as proof that yours has 
factual support is a very bad idea. For all any of us know, Harry/Cho 
will be the pairing that JK goes with, despite the awkwardness of 
Cedric's demise. You can't presume to know what will happen to the 
characters in future books. Ditto on Ron & Hermione's "inevitable 
hook-up" leading to Harry and Ginny getting together. Is it just me, 
or does their romantic involvement being the product of loneliness 
and terror just *not* offer warm fuzzies? At any rate, there are 
plenty of scenarios you could use to explain how H/G could work in 
canon ? picking one that alienates all other ships is ill advised. 

Heidi:
<<We won't see, "And despite the fact that they 
haven't had a one on one conversation since they left Moaning 
Myrtle's bathroom back in Harry's second year, he married Ginny 
Weasley because he wanted to get a wizarding family very very quickly 
and she was available." But based on canon as it is to date, unless 
JKR does something very expansive with Ginny, that's what such an 
epilogue would need to contain.>>

I think most people tend to forget that we have three books left to 
go. Three entire books. Look at how Hermione was characterized in 
Prisoner of Azkaban ? would you say that she was lacking in depth? 
That she wasn't faceted enough to be a substantial character? Age 
aside, I think her characterization was well developed at that point. 
Granted, by book seven, other characters will have a lot more 
explained about them, but I don't think it's fair to say that she'll 
still be a very raw character three books down the line.

Not that Heidi was saying that, but that's a common argument in this 
age-old battle, and I don't think that JKR doing something "very 
expansive" would be all that hard.

Penny:
<<All we know is she has puppy love or 
a crush on him; he, by contrast, has never given her a second 
glance.>>

I'd like to point out, just for the record, that Harry hasn't given 
*anyone* a second glance, save Cho. The other popular candidate for 
Harry's partner is Hermione, and we haven't seen him yearning for her 
affections, either. Not that I'm saying this means anything either 
way, but the fact of the matter is, basically *nothing* is plausible 
for canon romance as of now. His lack of "glances" at Ginny doesn't 
really say anything disparaging about their future relationship.

If I may diverge from replying to other people's views on the 
subject, I have some opinions on the matter. 

IMO, Ginny's character isn't one that is coincidentally there, and I 
don't think that H/G shippers are totally coming out of left field 
with their feelings. I think that she was placed in these certain 
situations to further parts of the plot ? not necessarily romantic 
plot, but that's a possibility, too. Since JK has said that Ginny 
will play a larger role in OoTP, I think that means her behavior in 
the previous books was build-up to whatever will happen in book five. 
JK has said that the whole plot of the HP books came to her at once ? 
I doubt she'd feebly build up the character of Ginny to simply kill 
her off before she's even really served a purpose, because that's 
just poor planning. 

I don't think Harry will get together with Ginny while they are at 
Hogwarts. I think they are two very different teenagers, with 
different groups of friends, different interests and different lives. 
Anything that could bring them together enough that they could 
actually wind up together would only be something to do with the war. 
Aside from the fact that whatever they were dealing with in relation 
to Voldemort would take away from a relationship, the time they would 
spend together then would hardly be conductive to furthering romance.

However, they might not be such different adults. The war could bring 
them together, they could get to know each other while still in 
canon, and wind up having a relationship after they left school. That 
doesn't mean they get engaged at age seventeen, but instead start to 
get to know each other well enough at that age that a relationship is 
plausible in later years.

Of course, there are countless other scenarios that would be equally 
as plausible. It's really all in the eye of the beholder.


Emily 




From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 12 23:33:35 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:33:35 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ginny, Riddle's Diary and Cracking
Message-ID: <F190DWHElKFR6pF7vUF000171d9@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35101

*pulls out her GIANTCOUSHIN and sits by the fire*

>From: "elfundeb" <djdwjt at aol.com> wrote:
>Something that has always bothered me about Ginny is the fact that
>after recovering Riddle's diary from Harry, instead of destroying it
>she opens it up again, leading to 2 more Petrefications and her own
>near-death.  How could anyone be so dumb?

Ginny isn't stupid in CoS. She's a normal eleven year old kid. Well, as 
normal as eleven year old kids ever get in Wizarding Britain, and the diary 
was a bit of naivete on Ginny's part. I doubt that Ginny conciously even 
knew what she was doing when she was wringing the chicken's necks, painting 
the messages on the wall, etc. What Ginny wanted was a person to listen to 
her and confide in, and Tom did that. Granted, his intentions were indeed 
malicious but Ginny had no way of knowing this unless Tom told her so. And 
Revealing His Plans is just not something an Evil, Unassailable Dark Lord 
(even as a sixteen-year-old boy in memory form in a diary) does. Even 
Dumbledore says (to paraphrase) that "many an older and wiser wizard has 
been hoodwinked by Lord Voldemort".

But Mr. Weasley's quote still stands as one of my favorites: "Ginny Weasley 
what have I told you? Don't trust something that can think for itself if you 
can't see where it keeps its brain!?" :D

But I was flipping through
>CoS and noticed that Harry, when he had the diary in his possession,
>spent a lot of time flipping through the pages trying to figure it
>out, and even carried it around with him in his backpack though it
>had nothing to do with his classes.  Is it possible that Riddle's
>presence in the diary is so powerful that it lured Harry into these
>actions?

I suspect its partly Harry's curiousity, and partly Tom's ability to cajole 
others into doing what he wants them to do.

>Now, would Ginny crack?  If Ginny was already caught by Riddle's
>diary -- not once but twice -- doesn't this make her a prime
>candidate for cracking?

Ginny could crack. I think that anyone could crack. JKR always manages to 
throw us for a loop.

If Riddle's diary exerts such control
>over the possessor, how was Ginny able to throw it away?  Doesn't
>this demonstrate that she had developed some ability to resist?  And
>after she got the diary back, and it began exerting its power over
>her, she tried to confess to Ron, but lost her nerve when Percy
>showed up.  So maybe the diary wasn't in complete control of her,
>after all.

I don't think it was the diary itself that had power over Ginny. Tom seemed 
like quite the charmer in his youth, too bad he couldn't've retained some of 
those good looks when he became the EUDL (Evil, Unassailable Dark Lord). 
But, like Mr. Weasley said, "An object like that is clearly full of Dark 
Magic."

Liz (who would defend a Weasley to the Virtual Death, but it staying out of 
the Sirius-ly Defensive Debate)

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




From theennead at attbi.com  Tue Feb 12 23:40:00 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 23:40:00 -0000
Subject: limitations of UC
In-Reply-To: <a42pbo+b7fc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4c94h+lnrc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35102

Just a quickie, on the Unforgiveables.

Tex asked:

> Why would a dark(i.e. one who is already on the sheet for using 
> an UC, so it doesn't matter if he uses more) wizard cast any other 
> spell than AK? Is it more difficult?  What spells would one use in 
> a serious duel, other than the UC's?

Crouch/Moody claimed that AK was difficult, and I see no reason
to suspect his word on *that* issue, at any rate.

More to the point, though, I think, is the fact that AK targets 
only one person.  It is unblockable, which is good, and it does
kill instantly, which is also good, but in a combat situation, 
I can easily imagine why you might want to use something with
a wider effect, even at the expense of a little bit of 
"BANG -- You're Dead!"-dom.

AK might also require careful aim, which would make it a far
less appealling option if visibility were limited, or if your
enemy had cover.

Something like whatever Pettigrew used to blast all those
muggles might be a more tempting alternative, if you got yourself
into a situation that wasn't one-on-one combat, or if you didn't
have a clear line of sight to your target.

About Imperius, Gray Wolf wrote:

> We're discovering recently that the Imperio has big disadvantages 
> (like people throwing it off at will, and it always looked 
> implausible to me that the wizard who made the curse could have the 
> imprisioned one do ANYTHING while under the curse...

Yes.  I suspect (on the basis, admittedly, of no very strong 
canonical evidence) that Imperius victim's chances of throwing 
off the curse start to rise exponentially once he is being asked 
to perform acts to which he is deeply and fundamentally opposed.

I think that canon does *suggest* this in places.  His fury at
seeing Lucius Malfoy (and the rest of the ex-DEs) all smug and
happy and successful at the QWC would seem to have acted as the
catalyst for Crouch Jr's ability to overthrow his Imperius: being 
called upon to sit there silently and watch the game, rather than to 
act on his sense of fury and outrage, would seem to have been the 
straw that broke that particular camel's back.  And I feel certain 
that Crouch Sr.'s ability to throw off the curse was greatly aided by 
the fact that (whatever one thinks of his methods) he was a 
*fanatical* opponent of Dark Wizardry -- and so probably not the best 
candidate for forcing to aid with a plot to restore Voldemort.

That said, though...

> The latest developments in Canon seem to point out that "Imperioed" 
> people need constant supervision...

I don't think that I agree.  Crouch Sr. isn't under supervision 
during his appearance at Hogwarts for the selection of the Triwizard
Champions, and while he does seem to be trying to fight it off (I 
assume that this is why Harry keeps noticing him looking sicker and 
sicker throughout the meeting in the antechamber off of the Great 
Hall), he doesn't succeed.  Unsupervised Crouch is still unable to
disobey his (rather complicated) orders, even though the original 
caster of the Imperius is *miles* away at the time.  He can't even 
manage to accept Dumbledore's invitation to tea, although I'm sure he 
would have liked to.

(I do think that one of the major reasons that Moody/Crouch stomped 
in on that meeting was to be on hand in case Daddy *did* succeed in 
throwing off the Imperius.  What he planned to do about it if that 
had happened, though, I have no idea.)

So constant supervision does not seem to be necessary to maintain the
Imperius.  It would also seem that Imperio'ed people are capable of 
following rather complex commands -- even ones that rely on a certain 
degree of thought and volition.  What were Crouch's "orders?"  I get 
the impression they were something along the lines of: "Act like your 
normal self, don't tell anyone what's really going on, fulfill your 
function as an official for this event, and then come straight home, 
Barty -- no stopping for drinks."   

-- Elkins




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Tue Feb 12 23:40:07 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 23:40:07 -0000
Subject: Lily's taste in men/ Fans' taste in Snape???
In-Reply-To: <003f01c1b3f4$b117be80$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a4c94n+p45u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35103

I had said:
>> ...why is it Snape's fault if Lily had boring tastes in men, and >> 
went for bland jock James instead of brilliant, enigmatic Snape?...

and Laura Huntley replied
> James..a bland jock? *looks alarmed* The Head Boy? The top of his 
> class? The prankster? ...Is Harry a bland jock, and, 
> if so, why are we all reading a series about a bland jock, anyway?

Sheesh, you can't get anyway with any hyperbole in this group.  I feel 
as if my artistic license has just been revoked!

I don't really mean that James was bland; just that he is a pretty 
bland romantic choice compared to Snape.  It's like the difference 
between saying "Long-stemmed red roses are my favorite flower" and 
saying "deadly nightshade is my favorite flower."  Roses aren't bland 
in any absolute sense (they have thorns and all), but they certainly 
are a more ordinary choice. 

Laura then warmed my heart by saying: 
> Canon Sirius comes across as anything but charming 
> to me.  I mean, in PoA he's deranged and homicidal, and in GoF - 
> there's just no delicate way to put this - he eats rats.... Did he
> really want to try win the trio to his side at the Shack? Nope, he
> was all "break the leg, scare the kids, kill the rat, 
> make excuses later."

Laura, please, please go to the thread entitled "A Sirius Defense" (or 
offense) and tell that to Penny! 

Sadly, Laura also said: 
> Anyway, I just don't know about Snape.  Believe me, I am *all* about 
> going for the bad-but-well-don't-you-just-WANT-him??!!-guy (I.e. the 
> vampire complex).  However, Snape just doesn't seem to fit into this 
> category as far as I'm concerned. *grins sheepishly* Perhaps it's 
> just because he's old and his hair is oily.  I guess I kind of like 
> my bad-boys to be all pretty and virile.

Old?!?!  First, Cindy (or someone -- I think it was Cindy) describes 
Snape's classmate Avery as "middle-aged", and now Snape himself is 
described as *old*.  Most timelines put Snape as being born two years 
before me, which is just perfect. ("Yes, perfect,"  Judy sighs, and 
starts thinking about....)

Ooops, sorry, must've drifted off for a moment there.  Anyway, I was 
wondering how old you envisioned Snape as being?  JKR says he's 35, 
and I hope you don't think that 35 is old.  Alan Rickman, who played 
him in the movie, is 55, so perhaps that's where you got the idea that 
Snape is old. 

About his hair -- well, one could always suggest a bath for two in the 
Prefect's tub. (Just make sure to keep Myrtle out somehow.)
 

Jo Ellen said:
> I have sat here wondering all this time about the real partners of 
> these women that are so fond of Snape..

Hah, hah, that's great!  Actually, my husband of 8+ years is a saint. 
 He's been slaveing away like a house-elf, refinishing the floor while 
I've been yacking on this forum.  He's the nicest guy imaginable, and 
definitely not sarcastic -- he's the strong and silent type. He even 
knows all about my Snapecrush, and doesn't mind.  (He figures it's 
just a "woman thing", and that if I didn't have a crush on Snape, I'd 
be doing something far worse, like drooling over a picture of Julio 
Iglesias.)  I told my DH (dear husband) that he belongs in Hufflepuff, 
and I meant it in a *good* way.  (Loyal, kind, hard-working, etc.) 

-- Judy






From david_p at istop.com  Tue Feb 12 23:44:27 2002
From: david_p at istop.com (david_p2002ca)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 23:44:27 -0000
Subject: SHIP/FILK: Relationship Things
Message-ID: <a4c9cr+jf91@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35104

I'm no lyricist; I'm not really a Shipper either, but the recent 
threads on the board all came together for me.  With apologies to 
Rogers and Hammerstein, and especially to Julie Andrews.


To the tune of "My Favourite Things" from The Sound of Music (more or 
less)


There's Harry and Cho, and Ginny and Neville,
Ron and Hermione, now that's the level
Percy, Penelope , will they trade rings?
These are my fav'rite relationship things...

There's James and there's Lily, and some say there's Sev'rus;
McGonagall, Dumbldore, what shall come o'er us?
May not be canonical, still makes me sing
'Bout all my fav'rite relationship things...

There's Black and there's Lupin in some slash fan fiction;
Arthur and Molly are more in tradition;
Rita's an insect her lying quill stings
Causing commotion `mong all shipping things


At the Yule Ball
Ron felt so small
He was dumped so fast
But some day he'll ask out Hermione
And then have a ship
That lasts.


David P.





From Zarleycat at aol.com  Wed Feb 13 00:00:15 2002
From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:00:15 -0000
Subject: A Sirius Offense
In-Reply-To: <a49liu+luj0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4caaf+ki8i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35105

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:

> I have to say, for two people with similar names here (Judyserenity 
> and Jo Serenadust), we sure have different views of Sirius.  I 
guess 
> you won't be happy unless I say Sirius is a nice guy.  OK, here 
goes. 
> Sirius is a wonderful guy -- nay, a saint -- except when he's 
choking 
> his godson, breaking a boy's leg, slashing everything in sight, 
> feeding a classmate to a werewolf, or threatening to AK a former 
> friend, which unfortunately is almost all we ever see him do.  
There, 
> is that better?  No, I didn't think so.   

Right, that sums up Sirius.  No possiblity for change or attempts to 
try to fulfill that godfather role. Once you've seen him in PoA, 
you've seen the complete picture. 

 He could have offered Harry advice when Harry asked for it, and come 
back to England to try to be as close as possible to Harry, at great 
personal risk, but no, ole Sirius preferred to stay on a beach 
playing with toucans and drinking mai tais.  

He could have been the only person Harry trusted enough to pour out 
his fears about the First Task and his frustration with the rift with 
Ron, but Sirius was too busy looking for his lost motorbike.  

He could have been there after the Third Task to offer what comfort 
he could, but, I forget, was he in the Leaky Cauldron picking up 
chicks?  

Nope, you're right, looks to me like Sirius is completely 
irredeemable.

Marianne 





From heidit at netbox.com  Wed Feb 13 00:03:13 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:03:13 EST
Subject: SHIP: Problems with the concept of...
Message-ID: <16c.8b568fe.299b0741@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35106

In a message dated 2/12/2002 5:41:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
devin.smither at yale.edu writes:


> Whoa.  Whoa.  Okay, I'm really sorry.  I've actually made people 
> upset.  

If you're implying that you upset me, you didn't. I'm not taking this SHIP 
debate that seriously, I promise you. I didn't mean to demonstate ire myself, 
and hope that you didn't percieve me as presenting any. Saracsm is all well 
and good (although you can peek at my post from yesterday as to an as yet 
unanswered query about that) even in SHIP debates. They're nothing but 
speculation - and whatever we convince ourselves, or others, of, is 
completely immaterial as far as canon is concerned anyway, as we all know. 
But personally, I think that looking at canon from alternate perspecitves and 
having weird insights is part of the fun. Of course, YMMV (your mileage may 
vary). Then again, I chirp up every so often with the "Draco may not be 
redeemed in canon when Book 7 concludes but JKR's certainly set the stage to 
be able to do it if she wants to" thread and a lot of people think I am nuts 
for doing so (of course, others think I'm nuts, but then I whisper, "Darcy, 
Draco, Darcy, Draco," and they say, "she's nuts but she may have a point."
> 
> I'm gonna go ahead and raise a white flag on just about every issue.  
> I jumped in half-cocked on quite a few things, unprepared, and I 
> admit that.  While I really DO want to defend my point of view on a 
> couple of things (I still don't think Ginny threw the diary away on 
> Riddle's orders...I did NOT mean that Rowling would portray her 
> characters in an unrealistic way...and I DON'T think Ginny and Harry--
> IF they are ever a couple--would announce an engagement in Book VII's 
> August-June of seventh year time frame), I really think I should just 
> let tempers cool before I even start to do that.  


IMHO, you should do so any time you want. Wait, no, not tonight. Go study. 
But after, yes, please, do so. 
> oPlease forgive me, once more, if 
> you thought I was just butting my head against the wall like a 
> pouting child going, "No, no, NO, I'M RIGHT!!!"  That wasn't my frame 
> of mind, and I'm really sorry.
> 

I didn't think you were doing that, so no requests otherwise are necessary.

> This board is mostly about speculation, yes?  Canonized, backed-up 
> speculation?  I don't think I've done too much of anything that was 
> utterly unsupported by canon.  

Honestly, you haven't. It's just that people read canon differently. It's 
amazing how different 2 people can read the same itsy bitsy sentence, like 
the one about lily and James being Head Boy and Girl "in their day." I never 
saw an implication in that, that they were together in school. You did. To 
each their own. 

> I'm sorry if you disagree, or think 
> I'm extrapolating too much, but I don't think any of my arguments 
> were utterly without foundation 

Why do people apologize for the fact that others disagree with them? Please 
answer on OT_Chatter - this question is not rhetorical - I would love an 
explanation of this! Really!
> tIf people are going to get cranky when I get 
> too enthusiastic about a certain issue, and then bite my head off, 
> I'm not so sure I want to voice my opinions.  

Erm. Was I cranky? If so, then *I* apologize. I really and honestly thought 
that I was just voicing my read on canon and adding in another point that 
I've heard argued about the posession being ongoing. 
> Maybe you think that's 
> a good thing, that we'd be better off without my opinions, but I 
> would never jump on someone who was brimming with enthusiasm over any 
> part of Harry Potter.  
> 
No, I think opinions are great. WOnderful, everyone should have them, they 
should be discussed and debated and deliberated over, especially when one, as 
we here, has no idea whether one's opinions are based in "fact." We're 
dealing with an open canon, as the series is unfinished, and there's tonnes 
of room for opinions. Even ones which are diametrically opposed to each 
other. BTW - I'm not sure what you mean by jumping on someone who is brimming 
with enthusiasm... People jump on other people's opinions all the time here. 
Look at the debate which has been going for *a week* about Snape and Sirius 
and their issues, rivalry, impact, morals, etc. People are reading those two 
characters in completely different ways from each other, and they are going 
back and forth about which bits of canon support which arguments, which 
glimpses of real world psychology may be brought to bear on which character, 
whether the characters could exist in the real world in this manner, etc. And 
I honestly don't consider SHIP debates to be anything else. You and I are 
reading the character of Ginny in different ways, and I don't think I'm wrong 
in saying that we do not see eye to eye on how she's been characterized so 
far. Again, so what? It's just our opinions, and we both want to explain 
canon in a way that supports our feelings. Should I have just sat here and 
read what I considered to be an inaccurate rendition of canon? No, no more 
than you should have. Speak your mind, and the rest will follow, or something 
like that.
> I consider true enthusiasm for these books to 
> be in pretty limited demand, and I wouldn't get actually upset with 
> anyone who liked them the way I do.  Debate is valuable; utter 
> censure is not.
> 

: puts on Elf hat for the next paragraph:
Nobody should feel censured because another listie wants to debate something 
with them! I can't say that there are no right or wrong answers from canon - 
because there are, to date, things which pretty much all of us would agree on 
- but there are at least 2 different imterpritations for *most* scenes in the 
book, if not most lines of dialogue. 
: removes hat, as it is silly-looking anyway, and I much prefer my pointy hat 
anyway.


> So, ANYWAY, I'll just say that, based on my readings of novels (and 
> certain, more serialized forms of literature), I see Ginny as highly 
> foreshadowed to develop into something much more important than she 
> is in the books right now.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I can 
> be declared in the wrong irrevocably as of today.  

You can't. Nor can arguments to the contrary be declared wrong. That's why 
we're all laying them on the table, I think. 
> I'm gonna go study for two midterms I have tomorrow.  Shakespeare: 
> Script to Screen, and Econ: Industrial Organization.  I hope your 
> tomorrow is better than mine is going to be.
> 
Good luck, and have fun!

heidi
http://www.fictionalley.org


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




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Tue Feb 12 21:25:15 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:25:15 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Suspect Lupin?  (WAS: Snape, Lupin's Mistakes Again)
References: <a4btid+f87d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00a601c1b40b$c33ed780$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 35107

*sigh* I realize I have been posting entirely too much today..after this *one last comment*, I'm cutting myself off...I promise.  No, really.  *smiles a trustworthy smile, she hopes*...*realizes she needs to find different notation for either italicizing or actions, because using *'s for both is frankly confusing*

ELKINS SAID: 
> "'They call it the Dementor's Kiss,' said Lupin, with a slightly 
> twisted smile."

THEN EILEEN SAID:
>"And at that moment, I was crying, "Harry! Harry! >It's Sirius Black! 
>When will you realize?" "Slightly twisted." That is >awful.

Now, I am not going to try to deny for a second that Lupin Has Edge.  However, I interpreted that line in PoA to mean something entirely different.  Perhaps it's because I never thought that Lupin could actually be Black (were we being led to believe this? there was a red-herring? *looks alarmed* I must've missed it. *depressed sigh* I was never any good at fishing), but I always thought that the "slightly twisted smile" in question was not meant to be "twisted" in a psycho-homicidal way, but in a grimacing, half-smile kind of way.  As if Lupin were recognizing, in his subtle way, the irony of the name (a soul-sucking black magic described as a "kiss"?!) and of the situation.  Also, when I went back and re-read the books, I figured it also having something to do with his internal struggle over the entire Sirius's fate.  I mean, Lupin must've wanted justice for the Potters, but Sirius was also his friend, and the idea of the kiss being administered to someone he had loved so dearly must have hurt as well.  Lupin seems to me to be the type of person to respond to such an inner conflict with a melancholy, ironic smile. 


EILEEN ALSO SAID:
>Perfect. Sirius and the others know and like Lupin >well enough, but 
>there's already something instinctively dismaying >about his manner, 
>even when there isn't a war going on. I'd guess that >Lupin has been 
>the object of suspicions, great and small, since he >was very young. I 
>suspected him. 

^_~ I think that if any of the Marauders were ever dismayed by any of the other Marauder's behavior/manner, it would Lupin wagging his finger at Sirius.  Definitely not the other way around.

ELKINS SAID:
> (We won't even get into her response when she discovered the 
Snape-Is-
> Sexy people.)

me too.  sheesh.

EILEEN SAID:
>An interesting thing, though, imho, is that plenty of >people want to 
>"run off" with Sirius or Severus, but quite a few >have expressed hopes 
>of "marrying" Lupin.

>Now why would that be? Is it acknowledgement that >neither of the above 
>is stable enough to become that committed? ;-)

It's probably because Lupin is portrayed as quiet, thoughtful, sensitive, good with kids, and the like.  Whereas Sirius is, as you said, kind of unstable, and Snape is just an... *coughs very hard*...you know what I was going to say.  Which one would you like to be the "father of your children" (okay, that was sappy) and the like?  Although I stand by my conviction that Sirius IS turning into a devoted, caring father-figure for Harry.

laura


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





From fluxed at earthlink.net  Tue Feb 12 21:55:41 2002
From: fluxed at earthlink.net (vulgarweed)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 21:55:41 -0000
Subject: Hermione's Imminent Crisis
In-Reply-To: <a4b68b+q3jn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4c30t+cvqk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35108

Rita wrote:

> I don't see Hermione being that lacking in self-esteem.  Really.  
> My one hope for Hermione is that she gets herself some 
> girlfriends, she really does need some.  Maybe if Harry gets 
> closer to Cho, she and Hermione could form a tight 
> friendship--like a girl does with her boyfriend's sister.  
> 

Does she really need girlfriends, though? Hermione thus far has 
struck me as the specific type of bluestocking who is what some 
feminists call "male-identified" in a disparaging way--most of her 
friends are male, she seems to get along with males in a companionate 
way a little better than females, shares more common interests with 
guys, etc. I may be projecting a bit cause I'm rather like this 
myself, but I don't honestly think either gender makes "better" 
friends than the other or that Hermione, canonically speaking, has 
anything in common with Cho or Ginny or any other female character 
we've seen yet. Except for some of the female *professors* that is. 
This is also a pretty common pattern in gifted children, especially 
girls, (especially only children as I'll betcha Herm is)--frequently 
enjoying the company of older people more than of people her age. 
That's why I saw no problem with her relationship with Viktor. She'd 
probably need a boy a few years older to be close to her "equal" 
(remember, girls at that age mature noticeably faster than boys, in 
general).

Honestly it seems to me that as far as friendship is concerned, she's 
doing pretty much fine. I think that the only thing that could cause 
her a real, lasting self-esteem crisis (as opposed to the inevitable 
hormone-based shortlived ones all teenagers have) is the possibility 
of academic failure or the severe disapproval of someone she really 
respects, like McGonagall or Vector.

AV
(a proud member of the Snape is Dead Sexy club who lives with a 
blond, blue-eyed, slightly younger, mild-mannered, twinkly-eyed 
kitten-petting musician boyfriend. The whole fun of fantasy is that 
it allows you to be free to want things you really wouldn't want to 
want in real life. Even better, there is no compulsory monogamy in 
fantasy, and I also think Remus and Sirius are dead sexy, as will 
Harry be if he survives to adulthood. Not Draco, though--can't stand 
that boy).





From fluxed at earthlink.net  Tue Feb 12 22:02:15 2002
From: fluxed at earthlink.net (vulgarweed)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:02:15 -0000
Subject: Would Edgy Lupin Crack?  (WAS Why Suspect Lupin? )
In-Reply-To: <a4bsq9+pdmq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4c3d7+hkoa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35109

Mahoney wrote:
> So no, Black wouldn't have suspected Lupin simply because Lupin had 
> an Edge.  Black would have suspected Lupin because as Lupin's close 
> friend, he would have seen Lupin acting on that edge ~ saying/doing 
> things that weren't entirely innocent.  Things that, during dark 
days 
> and with a spy on the loose, could easily be construed as the 
> words/actions of one who could be seduced to the Dark Side, so to 
> speak.

True enough, but I also think that Black was at the time a deeply 
shaken man who at that point was capable of believing anything about 
nearly anyone. All the pointers in the text to the horrible paranoia 
of wartime....really, just about *anyone* could Crack given the right 
pressures, and Black is more aware of this than anyone. Maybe he had 
crazy moments of suspecting everyone he knew--I'd be willing to 
believe that.
> 
> Incidentally, I personally view Lupin as a good guy who probably 
> won't crack (I say 'probably' because anything is possible).  
Doesn't 
> mean I find no fault in the character; and I actually like the 
> character better for having a potential to be a greatly flawed 
being.
> 
Absolutely agreed. But what if the line between 'good guy' and 'bad 
guy' or at least "gray guy" in the Potterverse isn't a line at all 
but a continuum: a simple measure of how much pressure someone can 
take before Cracking?

AV
(who likes 'em with a lot of Edge)





From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com  Tue Feb 12 22:15:21 2002
From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:15:21 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Would Edgy Lupin Crack?   Sirius would know
References: <a4bm6t+kqdp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00e601c1b412$c39ad600$db9bbc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 35110

cindysphynx wrote:
> The reason I'm not sold on that part of the argument is that I 
can't 
> imagine Lupin's Edge causing any problems for Sirius.  Sirius would 
> view Lupin's Edge as evidence of Lupin's understated manner, his 
> inability to connect emotionally.  Sirius would think that Lupin 
just 
> needs a good, stiff drink and ought to loosen up and live a 
little.  
> Sirius wouldn't start to suspect Lupin, I don't think, based on 
> Lupin's Edge.  

So no, Black wouldn't have suspected Lupin simply because Lupin had 
an Edge.  Black would have suspected Lupin because as Lupin's close 
friend, he would have seen Lupin acting on that edge.

Sirius will know exactly how close to the Edge Lupin can go - because he became an animagus to help Lupin in the first place (ditto James Potter).  We don't know where Lupin has been before he arrived in PoA and how much, if at all, he had been in touch with Sirius prior to the latter's Azkaban imprisonment.  The fact that there is a long-standing and deep bond is evident.  The recklessness of the trio during their schooldays and the risks they ran is mentioned (I am re-reading PoA and haven't got there yet so am relying on memory....).  Sirius would trust Lupin and know EXACTLY how far he could go without cracking.

I think the real Sirius has some moral grounding, some opinions about principles (not stooping to the level of the DEs) & values (how a parent should & shouldn't interact with their kids).  This, IMO, contradicts the 
Devil-may-care, self-centered Sirius that some people see.

Sirius, having spent a long time in Azkaban must be made of sterner stuff that his younger less careful self.  Personally, apart from the early years at Hogwarts, I think Sirius through bitter experience has become a more rounded humane character capable of a much wider range of responses than someone who has coasted through life (example : you learn more when your computer crashes than when if works all the time - forgive the analogy...).  

I am keen to see how JKR develops the Snape/Sirius thing in Book 5 as, at the end of GoF when Cornelius Fudge (British Civil Service at its worst at this point... I speak with an ex-insider's knowledge) refuses to believe Voldemort has returned, Snape and Sirius are *on the same side*.  Their handshake is a priceless moment of the blackest comedy coming as it does at the worst possible time.

Felicia




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





From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 12 22:43:13 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:43:13 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] anti-SHIP: Ginny griping
Message-ID: <F141A3iW9LxIjQAZDm200014c52@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35111

>From: "Laura Huntley" <huntleyl at mssm.org>
>she's SO...pre-teen-girly-esque

Being a fairly recent convert to the H/G camp, I might not be the best to 
refute this, but I wonder just how much of this perception comes from the 
fact that we only ever see Ginny through Harry's eyes.

Harry doesn't study with Ginny. He doesn't attend classes with her. He does 
with Hermione, and her intellect shines through the pages. To be honest, he 
rarely sees Ginny in canon. Yes, when she was 11 she squeaked a bit...she 
did a bit of fairly girly crushing...she wrote horrible 'poetry'...but she 
was *11*. By the end of book 4, she's 13, and while she was still obviously 
interested in Harry, and disappointed that she'd missed her chance to attend 
the Yule Ball, she wasn't a giggling idiot.

We have very little canon to go on here. My hope is that OotP will give us 
more information and bring some people back around to appreciating her as a 
character.

J

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com





From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Wed Feb 13 00:55:37 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:55:37 -0000
Subject: Sirius canon...dead sexy
In-Reply-To: <a4bruq+rela@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4cdi9+7ome@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35112

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "siriusgeologist" <lrcjestes at e...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" <huntleyl at m...> wrote:
> > 
> > ^_~ As a side note, I don't seem to remember Sirius as being 
> described as "dead sexy" (or anything of that nature) in canon. ^_^ 
> Not that I'm saying that he *isn't*, necessarily -I mean, in all 
> fairness, we can't really expect Harry to notice these things and we 
> *are* limited to his POV - but I do believe it to be important that 
> we differentiate between what-is-canon and what-we-want. Of course, 
> on this, I am a major hypocrite, I'm sure...*sigh*.
> > 

As soon as Harry finds out that Sirius was his father's friend, he
goes back to that photo album Hagrid gave him and looks at his
parents' wedding photos.  Sure enough, there's Sirius, laughing,
"handsome," and full of life.  The handsome part didn't seem to mean
much to Harry, but he was mystified by Sirius's demeanor: he didn't
*look* like a traitor or a murderer.

--Dicentra, who can't help thinking JKR put "handsome" in there for
her own benefit




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Wed Feb 13 01:25:33 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:25:33 -0000
Subject: Immaterial Girl (filk)
Message-ID: <a4cfad+dvnm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35113

Immaterial Girl (from CoS, Chap. 16)

(To the tune of Material Girl)

Dedicated to Catlady

THE SCENE: The Girls' bathroom. MYRTLE explains to Harry the 
circumstances of her demise.

MYRTLE
Some kids tease me, some boy killed me
You think that's OK?!
If I don't take the proper caution
I get flushed away

Since you ask, then I will tell
When I last saw the bright daylight:
When that boy with the cold high voice 
Administered last rites. 

Though you're living in the material world,
I'm an immaterial girl
Everyone thinks I'm such an inferior girl
`Cause I'm in the ethereal world 

How she scorned me, Olive Hornby
That's all right she thinks
But she got haunts thanks to her taunts
>From me here in my sinks

Here I spied two yellow eyes
As I hid in this stall to bawl
Then a boy who hissed his wording 
Put me in free fall

Kids score points but disappoint
If they can't hit my head
Ectoplasm is now my niche
Let's make fun of the dead

'Cause everybody's living in the material world,
I'm an immaterial girl
Everyone thinks I'm such an inferior girl
`Cause I'm in the ethereal world 

 - CMC

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





From cmf_usc at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 13 01:26:14 2002
From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:26:14 -0000
Subject: Weak Ron? (WAS  Ron Going To The Dark Side)
In-Reply-To: <a4c09r+47ao@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4cfbm+grdj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35114

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jenny_ravenclaw" <meboriqua at a...> wrote:
> 
> I see Ron mostly as weak.  In JKR's wizarding world, weak is a bad 
> thing to be.  Ron cannot fight the Imperius Curse (baaaaaad sign).  
 <<snip excellent descriptions of Ron's weaknesses and how he could 
give V. information>>

Yes!  This is just how I see Ron too.  All of our "good guys" have 
flaws, of course; but I think Ron's make him more susceptible to V. 
than anyone else's (except maybe Hagrid's?that blind loyalty thing 
really worries me?but I digress.)

Anyway, as I see it, there are 3 main ways Ron's character could go 
in the next books:

1.	Ever So Evil
I must admit, until the "Harry Potter & Me" special, my gut feeling 
was toward this.  Mostly because?it would be so _dark_.  And I kind 
of like dark.  But when JKR introduced the world to her friend Sean, 
saying Ron is based on him, and that they're both always there when 
you need them?well, I changed my mind.

2.	Loyal But Dead
There have been a few clues towards this so far.  Ron sacrificing 
himself in the PS/SS chess game could be a foreshadowing of his 
death.  Then there's the wand thing?Ron's got unicorn hair -- like 
the (dead) Cedric, and willow -- like the (dead) Lily.  But, to me, 
this just seems too obvious to come from the mind that gave us 
Scabbers.  Maybe the sacrifice & wand thing are just there to make us 
_really_ worried about Ron's safety at some point?  

  
3.     Good, Loyal, but Used by the Dark Side
Now this is the Ron I expect to see; one with weaknesses that are 
exploited. For folks who like to draw parallels between the Marauders 
and the present generation, I am thinking of a Ron/Sirius parallel 
here.  Both are, IMO, good guys at heart; loyal; and hot-tempered.  
(Is it just me, or can anyone else see Ron doing the Prank on Malfoy 
if provoked?) Anyway, Sirius was used by V/Wormtail as a fall guy; I 
predict Ron will be used in some way as well.

I know #2 & #3 aren't mutually exclusive, but still, my money's on #3.

Caroline
(who likes Lupin best of the adult characters, totally because of 
Edge and especially the dialogue in the Shack)





From tabouli at unite.com.au  Wed Feb 13 01:33:02 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:33:02 +1100
Subject: The alienated Slytherin, Crackin'
Message-ID: <004501c1b42e$b1ca3940$dc0fdccb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35115

Laura (quoting me):
>>It's an abusive childhood making him bitter and vengeful, it's being victimized in high school, it's being sorted into Slytherin and feeling alienated from the Good Side, it's joining the DEs and building up to a moral crisis, it's feeling marginalised and betrayed and self-loathing and jealousy, etc.etc.etc.!!!<<
>
> The point is, that someone who is in Slytherin probably *belongs* there, and is most likely happiest there, among people who are most like themselves on some innate level.  I have a hard time seeing Snape as disappointed with his assignment to S. House, neither do I see him feeling alienated or among the minority there.  Keep in mind that the qualities associated with the house (cunning, ambition, etc.) are all qualities that Snape has in spades - and are also NOT inherent "evil" qualities, to boot.  He would not have enjoyed being a Gryffindor anymore than Ron would have enjoyed by a Slytherin.  Or, imagine Snape in Hufflepuff - surrounded by cheery, friendly types - *talk* about bitter. ^_~ He would have been miserable.<

No, no, this wasn't what I meant at all.  I wasn't talking about whether Snape would have been happy in Slytherin, I was talking about Slytherin, as a house, feeling alienated from the rest, and Snape sharing this feeling with his housemates.  I mean, look at Quidditch, even... Gryffindor versus Slytherin, and Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw immediately take Gryffindor's side!  Look at Hagrid, badmouthing Slytherin before Harry even gets to Hogwarts!  Look at the reputation of Slytherins for going over to the Dark Side!  Look at Salazar himself, already marginalised by the other three at the very founding of the place because of his pure-blood views!

Nope, from what I see, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a strong in-group "us against the rest" attitude in Slytherin house,  a sort of "we Slytherins have got to stick together because everyone's out to get us" feeling.  Which, perhaps, is quite fitting for a house whose identifying characteristic is being ambitious.  Everyone else is a Rival in the quest for triumph.  Really, when you think about it, it isn't surprising that so many Slytherins go "bad" under the circumstances, is it?

Hmm.  I wonder what made JKR choose the qualities she did to identify the houses?

- Courage
- Ambition
- Diligence
- Intellect

... why these four qualities?  Obviously you can't get completely mutually exclusive qualities, but you could get less overlap than those four.  You could Sort on the basis of predominant interest (not ability, interest) instead of character, like... er... er... (Tabouli wracks her brains)...

- Sporty (competitors/players?)
- Intellectual (thinkers?)
- Artistic (dreamers?)
- Practical (doers?)

Well, maybe not.  I suppose it has to be character, for plot purposes.  I'll keep musing...

As for the definition of "to Crack", I would say something like "to cease to resist or break down when under pressure" or "to comply with demands you would normally refuse as a result of torture" or some such.  For example, let's say poor beleagured Ron got targetted by V, and copped a Crucio.  "Join me, Weasley, and the pain will stop.  Resist me and prepare to live the rest of your life in agony!  Ha ha ha..." etc. (true Evil Overlord stuff).  Ron would "Crack" if he broke under Crucio and decided that joining V was better than spending another 120 years in agony.

In typical good/evil black/white heroic fiction, of course, Ron, being a Good Guy, would choose a life of agony rather than betray his allies, and if he "Cracked" it would reveal him to be a despicable coward with secret Bad leanings ("THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED!  DIED RATHER THAN BETRAY YOUR FRIENDS" etc.).  In real life, however, it's pretty unrealistic.  Perhaps I'm a shameless wussy poltroon, but I don't think my resistance would last long in the torture chamber...

Tabouli.




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




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Wed Feb 13 01:43:14 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:43:14 -0000
Subject: A Sirius Offense
In-Reply-To: <a4caaf+ki8i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4cgbi+51fq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35116

Marianne said, tongue-in-cheek, of my critisms of Sirius:
> Right, that sums up Sirius.  No possiblity for change or attempts to 
> try to fulfill that godfather role. Once you've seen him in PoA, 
> you've seen the complete picture. 

Well, I've already talked about how some people think the GoF Sirius 
is the "real" one; how some think the PoA Sirius is the "real" one; 
the fact that I think the two Siruses (Sirii?) are incompatable, and 
why I put the emphasis on the PoA Sirius.  It's in message 35907.

--Judy




From theennead at attbi.com  Wed Feb 13 02:01:30 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 02:01:30 -0000
Subject: Fan Readings & Subversion (WAS: Where's the Canon -- Part Two)
In-Reply-To: <294CE14F-1DD9-11D6-9B09-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a4chdq+ul2b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35117

> I'd like to jump into this thread <said Porphyria who will probably 
> prove to be more un-subversive than will amuse Elkins ;-) >

Oh, I shouldn't worry about that, Porphyria.  I'm easily amused.  ;-)

> For starters, I'm interested in summing up a few areas of potential 
> reader unrest in the HP series to see if anyone else would like to 
> discuss them. 

Cool!  Let's see, now.

> 3. Frustrations of being an adult reading a series which is 
> designed to be suitable for a child or young adult audience (i.e. 
> certain issues like teen pregnancy or drugs seemingly will never be 
> addressed; sex gets glossed over)

Hmmm.  I can't say that this one has bothered me much (not yet, at 
any rate).  I was fairly impressed, in fact, with the way that in the 
last book, JKR managed to suggest some rather adult nastiness without 
actually straying from the PG path.  The harrassment of Mrs. Roberts
at the Quiddich World Cup, for example, certainly suggests muggle-
rape as a popular DE pasttime to adult readers; to a child I expect 
it would have had far stronger associations with the playground 
obsession with seeing people's underwear.  (Not, of course, that the 
two phenomena are completely unrelated, which is part of what made it 
such a very *clever* gloss, IMO.)

> 5. Inconsistencies of genre: the series combines elements of 
> fantasy/fairy tale (in which one typically finds archtypical roles 
> with distinct functions) with that of the mystery (where characters 
> are often not what they seem and break type), plus other genres as 
> well: boarding school, coming-of-age, and certainly satire. Do 
> these genres combine in a satisfactory way or are they often at 
> cross-purposes?

Now *this* is a really interesting one, because I think that my 
answer would have to be: "Both."  The 'genre-soup' aspect of the 
books is certainly one of the things that I find most appealing about 
them, and I doubt that I'm alone in that: I suspect that it may well 
be one of the things that accounts for the series' enormous 
popularity.  At the same time, though, the genres that JKR is 
combining *do* often work at cross-purposes, and I think that this
can definitely be...anxiety-provoking.  

Take that infamous Gleam In Dumbledore's Eye, for example.  That 
gleam does seem to have caused some people a great deal of 
consternation, and I think that the genre-medley is largely to blame 
for that.  If this were merely a fantasy/fairy tale, then the Gleam 
would be far less of an issue: a gleam in the twinkling blue eyes of 
the Old Wise Wizarding Mentor can mean nothing but good news in sucn
a story.  In a series which owes so much to the mystery genre, on the 
other hand -- a genre in which People Are Not Always What They Seem --
the Gleam really seemed to frighten some readers.  Could Dumbledore 
Be Up To No Good?  What if the gleam is there because Dumbledore has 
just realized that Harry's death might now serve to banish Voldemort 
permanently -- and he's just *thrilled* about it?  Could Dumbledore 
actually be a Machiavellian manipulator, driving poor Harry 
relentlessly onward to his doom with all of the consideration and 
compassion of a farmer whipping on a reluctant ox?

Heh.  Anxiety, yes.  And in this particular case, a type of anxiety 
that I am almost certain was not at all what the author had intended 
to inspire, one that I don't really know if I think is terribly 
beneficial, overall.

In some cases, though, I think that the anxiety provoked by the genre-
mixing is tremendously beneficial to the books.  PoA, for example, 
was such an engaging read in part, I thought, because it had all of 
these tremendously powerful mytho-poetic archetypes running all the 
way through it, and yet at the same time was so firmly rooted in the 
mundane details of the boarding school story, and *also* at the same 
time had strong aspects of an Agatha Christie-like mystery novel...
it was a page-turner in part because you just couldn't be certain 
*how* all of these genres were going to interact.  It wasn't just a 
matter of wondering what would happen next, or what was really going 
on in the plot; there was also a kind of metatextual mystery in play -
- "Which genre conventions will take precedence here?" -- that really 
made the book (for me, at any rate) impossible to put down.  

Anxiety there, too, certainly.  But a really really *good* kind of 
anxiety.


> Does anyone have any issues with the writing style?

<wince>

Er...do I get lynched around here if I say that I do sometimes
have some problems with the writing style?

What can I say?  I think that Rowling's an excellent story-teller.
Her prose style, on the other hand, leaves something to be desired.  
All IMO, of course.  Obviously I read the books with enjoyment, so 
it can't be all that big a problem for me.

Where it *does* become a problem for me, though, are the few places 
where I find myself running into a conflict between how the writing 
itself led me to visualize a scene while reading, and how I feel 
almost certain the author meant for me to visualize the scene.

Rowling's fondness for the verb "to shriek" is a good example of 
this one.  My *God,* does she love that verb!  She uses it every
chance she gets.  Whenever people raise their voices in the 
Potterverse, they are almost always "shrieking."  (The Shrieking 
Shack has always amused me for this very reason.  Of *course* it 
would be called "the Shrieking Shack!")

Now, to my mind a "shriek" is a very specific *type* of high-pitched 
raised voice.  The verb has an entire body of implications and 
associations connected to it as a matter of connotation, and 
JKR's "shrieks" don't always seem to quite match up with these.  (And 
no, I don't think that this is a matter of British vs American 
English.  I read many English books, and I have never run into this 
difficulty with anybody else.)  Sometimes it's almost as if I have to 
remind myself while reading: "Now, remember, Elkins: this is one of 
*Rowling's* 'shrieks.'  So you mustn't necessarily assume that it's 
*really* a shriek."

And that can be...jarring, yes.  Jarring and potentially 
problematic.  I say "potentially," of course, because I've actually 
consciously *noticed* the Shriek Problem, and so it doesn't have 
quite as much power to lead me astray as it might otherwise have done 
(my insistence on reading Avery as a pathological hysteric rather 
than as a grovelling toady aside...)

But what about JKR's idiosyncracies that I *haven't* consciously 
noticed yet?  Are they leading me into erroneous assumptions as a 
reader?

"Being Driven Right To The Brink of Sanity Draco" is another example 
of this.  I have a strangely divided mind when it comes to those 
scenes which illustrate The Very Worst Of Draco Malfoy.  The two that 
leap to mind are these:

The very end of Chapter Eight, CoS: 

"Then someone shouted through the quiet.

"'Enemies of the heir, beware!  You'll be next, Mudbloods!'

"It was Draco Malfoy.  He had pushed to the front of the crowd, his
cold eyes alive, his unusally bloodless face flushed, as he grinned
at the sight of the hanging, immobile cat."

(It's rather amazing, actually, that she didn't have him 'shrieking' 
there.  Draco often shrieks.)

And then this, towards the end of Chapter Thirty-seven, GoF:

"'So,' said Malfoy slowly, advancing slightly into the compartment
and looking slowly around at them, a smirk quivering on his lips."

<Draco's horrific "I tried to warn you" speech follows shortly
thereafter>


Now, I'm almost certain that I'm supposed to read both of these
scenes as a Just Plain Mean kid being spectacularly horrid.  And yet,
my instinctive reading of Draco as he is described in both of
those scenes is "stressed."  In the CoS passage he looks half-crazed
to me and not (as I suspect was the intended impression) with sadistic
enjoyment, either.  He looks *febrile,* like someone who is being
pushed to the very limits of his own sanity.  And similarly, in the
GoF passage, that single word, "quivering," acts to undermine 
completely for me the impression that I suspect JKR was actually 
trying to convey.

And this *is* a problem.  It's a problem because it creates a strange 
layering effect in my mind: there is the scene as I originally 
visualized it based on JKR's own writing, and then there is
the "revised edition" based on what I believe to have been the true 
authorial intent.  But the first impression can never be banished 
utterly: it remains, as a kind of ghostly shadow-image superimposed 
over my entire reading of the books -- almost like that reflection of 
myself that is always faintly visible when I look out of the window 
here in dark-and-cloudy Portland, Oregon -- so that, for example, I 
can never completely banish my mental image of Draco Malfoy as a 
deeply-divided character...even though I do not for a moment believe 
that he is *supposed* to be read as one.

And while to some extent this may be a matter of my own idiosyncratic
reading practice, it is also a writing problem.  Did JKR *really* 
stick the word "quivering" in that sentence to leave us with the 
impression that Draco is under emotional stress -- and thus to cast 
some doubt in our minds that he really means what he is saying?  
That's certainly the effect that it *has,* but was that its 
*intended* effect?  And if she didn't want to convey that impression, 
then why in God's name did she put that word "quivering" there in 
the first place?  Didn't she *know* the effect that would have on the 
reader?

Does the writer know what she's doing, or doesn't she?

If JKR were a better craftsman overall, then I would feel more 
confident in accepting my first readings as intent.  Because I don't 
quite trust her technical abilities, however, I often find myself 
revising ("Shrieked" there doesn't really mean *shrieked,* it just 
means that he raised his voice," "No, that isn't really stress,
that's sadistic pleasure; it just looks feverish because JKR got 
a little overexcited with her depiction," "That the smirk 
is 'quivering' probably doesn't really mean anything at all," etc), 
and that *is* an anxiety-provoker -- and one that can lead quickly 
into subversion.

> I'm interested in your assertion that all speculation (and fanfic) 
> is inherently subversive.... If I understand you correctly, this 
> subversion is independent of the content of the individual reader's 
> content; one does not necessarily have to offer a controversial 
> reading in order to effect this type of subversion.

Well, there are levels of subversion.  ;-) 

I do think that it is inherently subversive in that it is a kind of 
usurpation of authorial power.  To speculate about future plot 
events, for example, is to assume, if only temporarily, the role of 
the Author.  It is not necessarily a statement of authorial  
"superiority" -- one can speculate without ever implying, for 
example, that one could do a better job of writing the story than the 
original author could -- but it can very readily pave the way to that 
line of thinking.  

To speculate about a future plot development in a serial, for example,
involves first contemplating the possible options, and then choosing 
one over all of the others for reasons of plausibility, enjoyability, 
complexity, consistency, and so forth.  Should the next installment 
of the serial reveal that the work's true author chose one of the 
options that the fan had already considered *but rejected,* then that 
can certainly lead to feelings of authorial superiority ("My idea was 
so much better.  Why aren't *I* the one writing these things?").  It 
can also lead to a more generalized sense of disappointment and 
unrest, a loss of trust in the author. ("Of all the possible 
directions she could have taken that plotline, why did she choose
*that* option?  I mean, of all the stupid and simplistic ways to go 
with that...")

Even when speculation does not lead to these sorts of
disappointments, though, I think that it is still inherently 
subversive in that it encourages a different relationship with the 
text than the usual one which exists between a reader and a completed 
work.  It produces a dynamic in which the reader is empowered to make 
statements *as* the author ("I favor this theory because it is the 
one most in keeping with JKR's work to date..."), statements which 
even if they are not in the least bit controversial, may well prove 
to be false.  Speculation sets up a kind of *competition* between 
Author and Reader which texts which do not encourage speculation do 
not foster in quite the same way.

> Furthermore, I'd like to ask if all speculation and fanfic *must 
> be* predicated on frustrations with the text. Is there such a case 
> where a fan simply becomes so enamored with the fictional world 
> here the 'Potterverse') or with some of its characters that they 
> simply wish to become more of an active participant? 

One good example of this type of active participation, I think, is 
self-insertion.  Fan readings tend to be characterized by a high 
degree of self-insertion: the "fannish" reader likes to imagine 
herself entering the fictive world as neither reader nor as author, 
nor even precisely as character, but instead as reader-as-character.  
Fans enjoy perceiving the fictional world as one that has an 
independent existence outside of the text; imagining oneself actually 
*entering* this world is the next logical step.

Leaving aside the issue of how this often manifests itself in fanfic 
(because this isn't a fanfic board, and so I'd rather not get caught 
up in a discussion of Marysueism here), you see a lot of self-
insertion in speculative discussions too, as well as in plain old HP 
fan chatter.  ("What House do you think you'd be sorted into?" "If 
you could go to Hogwarts for one hour, where would you go?" "What 
sort of magic would you be best at, do you think?" "Who would you
hate more as a teacher: Hagrid, or Snape?" "Which characters would 
you actually like as people in real life?")

This is active participation that is not really based on frustration 
at all.  It's based in a desire to immerse oneself even more deeply 
in the fictive world.  It can often lead to frustration, though, 
because in order to imagine oneself actually *in* the world, one 
needs information about its details that the author has not 
provided.  I think that a lot of the speculation and discussion we
see here about the logistical details of the Potterverse, or about 
aspects of the world that fall outside of the scope of the books 
themselves, *is* characterized by a bit of frustration, even if 
frustration with the text was not the original impetus for wondering 
about these things in the first place.  If that makes sense.

"Can devout students even really *attend* Hogwarts?" might be a good
example of this one -- or, for that matter, "Where are all the 
Bleeding Hearts of the Wizarding World?"  ;-)  The questions, and the 
speculation they encourage, are symptomatic of a certain degree of 
frustration with the text.  But in many cases they derive from self-
insertion -- "How would I myself (as a devoutly religious person, or 
as a political leftist, or as a lawyer by profession, or as a 
lesbian, or as a superb student who would *want* to go on to higher
education) fit into this world?  Where would my place be?  What would 
my social role be?  How would I have to adapt myself, if this were 
the world that I inhabited?"  Self-insertion is the sign of an 
enamored reader, not a frustrated one.  But self-insertion quickly
*leads* to frustration with the text.

Uh...so in short, being enamored can lead quickly to frustration.

Riiiiight.  Like we didn't already know that.


> Or does all emotional involvement require some sort of frustration? 
> If not then authorial envy (wanting to write it yourself) and 
> anxiety with the text (and its consequent tendency to produce 
> readings against the grain) would be two separate forms of 
> subversion.

I think that in practice, the one almost invariably leads into the 
other.

> Here I'd like to add that the HP series itself actively and 
> consciously encourages speculation due to the way that it's 
> written. 

I think that this is an excellent point!  And JKR seems to take quite 
a bit of pleasure in teasing her fans about this aspect of the work 
as well, in interviews and such.  She may not have known she was 
doing this when she first started writing the series, but she's 
certainly doing it quite consciously *now.*

Snapestuff to follow.

-- Elkins




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Wed Feb 13 02:06:14 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 02:06:14 -0000
Subject: Pronunciation of Fortescue
Message-ID: <a4chmm+7qb4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35118

I recently wrote a filk in which I assumed that the surname of 
Florean Fortescue (he of the ice cream parlor in PoA, Chap. 4) was a 
three-syllable word (For-tes-cue). It now occurs to me that perhaps 
it is a two-syllable word (For-tesk). Could someone enlighten me?

  - CMC (who needs to invest in a set of Dale or Fry)




From lleecook at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 13 02:39:46 2002
From: lleecook at yahoo.com (lleecook)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 02:39:46 -0000
Subject: Book 5
Message-ID: <a4cjli+8hfq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35119

What is the latest information on the availability of book 5????




From john at walton.vu  Wed Feb 13 02:51:24 2002
From: john at walton.vu (John Walton)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 02:51:24 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pronunciation of Fortescue
In-Reply-To: <a4chmm+7qb4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <B88F852C.9DF1%john@walton.vu>

No: HPFGUIDX 35120

coriolan_cmc2001 wrote:

> I recently wrote a filk in which I assumed that the surname of
> Florean Fortescue (he of the ice cream parlor in PoA, Chap. 4) was a
> three-syllable word (For-tes-cue). It now occurs to me that perhaps
> it is a two-syllable word (For-tesk). Could someone enlighten me?
> 
> - CMC (who needs to invest in a set of Dale or Fry)

Get the Fry, Caius. At least he can speak in a decent English accent, cf.
Dale.

IIRC the Fry version says FORR-t at ss-kyoo" (where @ is a schwa, i.e. the u in
circus). I seem to remember that I've heard "forr-TESS-kyoo" as well.
Possibly in a Dale version? *shudders*

If I remember the lesson I had in "funny names and how to pronounce them" at
school, it *should* be FORR-t at ss-kyoo.

Just an FYI.

--John
____________________________________________

 "Do not thump the book of G'Quon.  It is disrespectful."
-- G'Kar, Babylon 5

John Walton || john at walton.vu
____________________________________________




From ms_superhero at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 13 02:58:52 2002
From: ms_superhero at hotmail.com (ms_superhero)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 02:58:52 -0000
Subject: Draco the Nutter (WAS:  Fan Readings & Subversion)
In-Reply-To: <a4chdq+ul2b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4ckpc+ufnf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35121

This was a very interesting, well-thought-out post, but I have a 
slightly different take on the following and thought I'd run it by 
you
--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" <theennead at a...> wrote:
> But what about JKR's idiosyncracies that I *haven't* consciously 
> noticed yet?  Are they leading me into erroneous assumptions as a 
> reader?
> 
> "Being Driven Right To The Brink of Sanity Draco" is another 
example 
> of this.  I have a strangely divided mind when it comes to those 
> scenes which illustrate The Very Worst Of Draco Malfoy.  The two 
that 
> leap to mind are these:
> 
> The very end of Chapter Eight, CoS: 
> "Then someone shouted through the quiet.
> "'Enemies of the heir, beware!  You'll be next, Mudbloods!'
> "It was Draco Malfoy.  He had pushed to the front of the crowd, his
> cold eyes alive, his unusally bloodless face flushed, as he grinned
> at the sight of the hanging, immobile cat."
<snip>
> And then this, towards the end of Chapter Thirty-seven, GoF:
> 
> "'So,' said Malfoy slowly, advancing slightly into the compartment
> and looking slowly around at them, a smirk quivering on his lips."
> <Draco's horrific "I tried to warn you" speech follows shortly
> thereafter>
> 
> Now, I'm almost certain that I'm supposed to read both of these
> scenes as a Just Plain Mean kid being spectacularly horrid.  And 
yet,
> my instinctive reading of Draco as he is described in both of
> those scenes is "stressed."  In the CoS passage he looks half-
crazed
> to me and not (as I suspect was the intended impression) with 
sadistic
> enjoyment, either.  He looks *febrile,* like someone who is being
> pushed to the very limits of his own sanity.  And similarly, in the
> GoF passage, that single word, "quivering," acts to undermine 
> completely for me the impression that I suspect JKR was actually 
> trying to convey.
> 
Actually, maybe she *is* trying to convey the impression of someone 
is on the brink of insanity?  These are the scenes where the Muggle-
hating fanaticism that was bred into him really come out.  Nasty as 
he is, he has to be a little nuts to be celebrating/gloating on both 
of these occasions (petrification of a cat/murder of a fellow 
student).  
Just a thought.
Elise




From Brwneil at aol.com  Wed Feb 13 00:53:54 2002
From: Brwneil at aol.com (orange364)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:53:54 -0000
Subject: SHIPs
Message-ID: <a4cdf2+5otm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35122

I doubt that Rowlings will get as deep into ships as fan fiction 
does, but since they will be fifteen I'm sure there will be some of 
it.  There are two boys and just one girl so usless one of the guys 
goes without a girl someone has to fill the void. I don't think it 
will be Cho, so Ginny is logical if Ron and Hermoine form a lasting 
relatioship.  If its not Ginny, then Harry would probably end up with 
Hermoine.  I don't know why, but I think Rowlings may end the series 
with Harry with Hermoine if for no other reason than that Harry's 
mother was a muggle.

Neil





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 13 01:28:06 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:28:06 -0000
Subject: anti-SHIP: Ginny griping
In-Reply-To: <008901c1b407$370c2c80$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a4cff6+7ad9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35123

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" <huntleyl at m...> wrote:
> I have a confession to make.  *looks abashedly at feet* I am a 
> closet Ginny-Hater... Fawning over Harry and the like.  
> Furthermore, it is very likely that she *was* the sender of the 
> singing-valentine (al la the singing get-well card), and I mean, I 
> felt so incredibly ashamed for her just reading that.  Plus, she's 
> giggling, immature, ..have I mentioned fawning already?

Concerning the singing valentine, I personally don't think it was 
Ginny who sent it.  "His eyes are as green as a fresh pickled toad"
Does that sound like something a girl in love would write? Harry 
thought she did at the time, but her look was more shock at seeing 
Riddle's diary than embarassment.

That Ginny was there convinces me it was Fred & George, who although 
nice guys were probably terrible to have as big brothers. They 
thought it was funny to jump out and scare Ginny when Hogwarts was in 
terror. They announced Harry as 'Make way for the heir of Slytherin' 
and turned Ron's teddy bear into a giant spider. Nice guys, but 
considering Dudley's ton-tongue toffee, I'd rather have them as 
friends than enemies.

Concerning Ginny's immaturity, the thing to remember about the 4 
Harry Potter books is that they cover FOUR YEARS! PLUS Ginny is a 
year younger then the trio so was 10 in book 1 and only 13 in GofF. 
Still she matured more than Ron. Laura agrees here...

> Although, to her credit, I do think she has improved greatly 
> throughout the books.  Her actions in GoF in regards to the Yule 
> Ball were almost dignified.  However, I can't like the girl.  
> Whenever anyone ships for her and Harry I get this awful feeling of 
> dread...gives me the willies.

The willies from little Ginny? As a first year she survived 
possession from LV! She WAS NOT corrupted (for those who have to post 
about characters going bad)

> Another reason why I dislike her is because, in my mind, she is the 
> anti-Hermione (who is my hero). I'm not saying that she and 
> Hermione were/will ever be at odds, but she's SO...
> pre-teen-girly-esque, and Hermione stands for everything that is 
> *not* of that particular mentality.  

JKR on the subject of Ginny has said her and Hermione have become 
good friends. I believe it's stated in the books that Hermione stays 
in Ginny's room when she visits the Burrow.

Also the majority of screentime (pagetime whatever) of Ginny was in 
ChofS. Was she wven in PofA? I couldn't find her! In GofF we see a 
girl two years removed from the giggler. Concerning the Yule Ball she 
was disappointed that she missed out on Harry but was kind and gentle 
to both Harry's feelings and Neville's. 

I'd like to see more of Ginny in Order of the Phoenix, (a year more 
matured than GofF) If there is a power stroggle in the MoM between 
Fudge and Dumbledore, all the Weasleys may be tested.

Uncmark





From rachrobins at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 13 02:46:21 2002
From: rachrobins at hotmail.com (tangawarra1)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 02:46:21 -0000
Subject: Wizards and Warlocks - What is the difference?
Message-ID: <a4ck1t+h3ed@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35124

I noticed last night that in CoS, When Ron, Fred and George rescue 
Harry from the Dursleys, Ron talks about his Dad's work at the 
Ministry of Magic:  "its only dad and an old warlock named Perkins 
there" (paraphrased. CoS). 

I also think I remember a reference to an International Confederacy 
of Warlocks in either "Quidditch Through the Ages" or "Magical Beasts 
and Where to Find Them".

Does anyone else have any idea what the difference between a warlock 
and wizard might be?  Perhaps there are levels beyond O.W.L. and 
N.E.W.T that might confer a different title?  

Rach







From gryffindor_lupin at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 13 05:21:19 2002
From: gryffindor_lupin at yahoo.com (gryffindor_lupin)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 05:21:19 -0000
Subject: Weak Ron?
In-Reply-To: <a4cfbm+grdj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4ct4f+pc5a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35125

Always afraid to jump into the conversation, I come to discuss my  
ickle Ronniekins. =) 

jenny_ravenclaw"  wrote:

> I see Ron mostly as weak. In JKR's wizarding world, weak is a bad 
> thing to be. 

Caroline wrote: 
<<Yes! This is just how I see Ron too. All of our "good guys" have 
flaws, of course; but I think Ron's make him more susceptible to V. 
than anyone else's (except maybe Hagrid's?that blind loyalty
thing 
really worries me?but I digress.)>>


I do not see Ron as mostly weak. I see him as a boy, a human being  
with flaws and weaknesses. However, I don't think they outweigh his  
good qualities.   

Yes, Ron has a bad temper. Horrible -- I wonder if he gets ashamed 
of  any outbursts later on. But most of the time, that temper comes 
out  because of Draco. At least, all the most significant times. Ron 
loses  his cool. He can't take insults, like many other people, and 
rightly so. Ron is provoked. He doesn't like the people he cares 
about being  hurt, though he may occasionally do the hurting himself. 
I think he  knows bad when it comes from other people, but with his 
own actions,  he's slow to realize. I actually like his fiery temper, 
his ability  to stand up to adversity and willingness to take a hit 
for others (in  both PS/SS and PoA). After all, aren't there times 
where we wished we  could have defended someone and didn't have the 
courage? Perhaps he's  not even being spurned on by courage, but by 
something deep within no  one understands.   

I like good guys with flaws -- I don't like good guys any other way.  
And if you look at it, Harry and Hermione are nearly good guys  
without visible flaws. In Ron's eyes, they are friends, but I 
believe  he thinks himself unworthy sometimes. Harry is the boy 
who "defeated"  Voldemort, gets pretty good grades, is all around 
pretty nice guy, as  well as athlete. Hermione is the "brain" with 
top marks who rarely  gets anything wrong. Like anyone else, those 
two have flaws, but none  you see as great as Ron's. Ron is all too 
aware of his family's  situation. Combine that with his brothers' 
overachieving, and you  have one insecure boy. Everyone gets bit by 
jealousy, perhaps of the  lucky lottery winner or the pretty movie 
star. To anyone's eyes,  those two are nearly perfect. Then when 
Harry is entered in the  Triwizard Tournament, well then it all 
breaks loose. I don't think  Ron's frustrated at Harry himself, but 
at nearly everything around  him. But, I don't think he wants to be 
great just so that he gets  glory. I believe he wants to do great 
things because he wants to matter. He may be insecure, but loyalty is 
the trait that I see primarily.

All have flaws that could lead to a darker path, fictional character 
or not. The trick is knowing and accepting the good over the bad. You 
need inner strength to fight off those darker reaches of yourself 
too. I think that Ron has shown that he the power to hold anything 
bad at bay. He may succumb to the trivial things, but in the long 
run, he's on the path of good. 

jenny_ravenclaw wrote: 
Ron cannot fight the Imperius Curse (baaaaaad sign). 
<<snip excellent descriptions of Ron's weaknesses and how he could 
give V. information>>

Now, on the Imperius Curse: it seems that not all great wizards have 
the ability to fight off the Imperius Curse. An example would be Mad 
Eye Moody, famous Auror extraordinare. Even the great Moody was put 
under  the Imperius Curse and forced to live in a box for months. So 
then, what kind of strength does it take to fight the Curse?    

Karen 







From psion_x at yahoo.com.au  Wed Feb 13 06:16:44 2002
From: psion_x at yahoo.com.au (psion_x)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 06:16:44 -0000
Subject: Class Scheulues
Message-ID: <a4d0cc+vkkf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35126

After reading Goblet of Fire I noticed that when the Beauxbatons and 
Drumstrang students arrive at Hogwarts on October 30th at 6 p.m 
classes end a half hour early. 
So this means the last class of the day finishes at 6.00 p.m but 
classes start in the morning at 9.am, which means the students have a 
nine hour long day. 
Although there are breaks between classes these seem at the most ten 
minutes, so how does it add up to nine hours? As far as I can figure 
out in Harry's Fourth year he has three/four classes a day.So in 
order to add up to nine hours each class would have to be two hours 
long, a double lesson (which I take to mean as two lessons back to 
back) FOUR hours long and lunch THREE hours long!
Does anyone else have theory's on how this could work?

Anonymoose :O)
I'm writing a fic and I'm having trouble figuring out when everyone 
has free time, which is why I'm interested in the lesson scheulue.





From chspnll at pacific.net.in  Wed Feb 13 07:11:59 2002
From: chspnll at pacific.net.in (Chris Parnell)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:11:59 +1100
Subject: Snape Played Quiddich?
In-Reply-To: <1013070141.1365.87082.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <EMEFJEGPENOCIMPKEAHJCEPJCCAA.chspnll@pacific.net.in>

No: HPFGUIDX 35127

Ahem....

I went reading the LOLLIPOPS very LONG biography this day and tripped
up when I read the following:

"Snape's behaviour makes much more
sense. He lays eyes on 11yo Harry at the Sorting, and what does he
see?
Someone who looks almost exactly like the man who outclassed him in
Quidditch,"

Where is the evidence (or the canonical suggestion) that Snape played
Quiddich? Snape refereeing Quiddich is simply a teacher stepping in
with teacher authority to regulate student behaviour. I don't think
that is evidence for having playing that sport.

O Captain, before I sup at the Captain's Table, I would like to see
the Menu.

The Customs Officer





From lucy at luphen.co.uk  Wed Feb 13 08:31:06 2002
From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:31:06 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book 5
References: <a4cjli+8hfq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007a01c1b468$c7ad33e0$b0ae1e3e@stephen>

No: HPFGUIDX 35128

>lleecook said:

> What is the latest information on the availability of book 5????

The Harry Potter Fan Newsletter I just received said that rumour is that JKR is now in the final stages, and that they are betting on an April release. Of course, this is still just being hopeful, but it sounds like it's getting closer to a proper date!

Lucy the Drifty


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




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Wed Feb 13 10:06:50 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 21:06:50 +1100
Subject: Wizard society: Cultural fossilisation?
Message-ID: <001201c1b476$77309de0$371cddcb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35129

Heidi, quoting Devin:
>> As Pippin already pointed out (thank you Pippin!), I'm presupposing 
>> an epilogue which JKR kindly notified us of.  Sorry I didn't make it 
>> more clear, but nowhere did I claim to have a marriage at 16/17 in 
>> my mind.  
>
>And I thought I'd made it clear in my prior post that I would find an 
>engagement at that age to be equally Ewwwwwy.

Heidi, like all goodly listmembers, is welcome to her distribute her EW!s where she will, but her Ewwy (like three day old chewy) in this case has set me a-musing (now, where's my FBaWTFT again? Ah).

If I interpret JKR correctly, the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy was passed in 1692.  Presumably, this caused a significant decrease in "traffic" between the Wizard and Muggle societies.  Oh sure, there were Muggle-borns and mixed marriages, but from what JKR has showed us so far, the cultural influence of Wizards on Muggles who enter its ranks seems to be much stronger than the other way round.  We don't know enough to say so conclusively at this stage, but from what we know of Lily, Dean and Hermione, it seems that once Muggle-borns enter the Wizarding world, they've entered a microculture whose customs apparently replace their own, at least while moving in magic circles and perhaps even when they sneak back into the Muggle world (I really wonder what Hermione tells her parents in the holidays).

Interestingly, this suggests that Wizards are the "dominant culture" in the exchange, despite being a minority culture that has to hide itself.  (Tabouli rummages around in her fading memories of the acculturation research she read 4 or 5 years ago).  In fact, they are more like a sort of elite club than a "minority group" as we know them - they speak the local language, but have their own unique customs and activities.  If you cannot participate in these activities, you cannot be a member.  If you are born into the club and still can't participate, you are marginalised (Squibs).  If you marry a member, you get honorary membership to attend club meetings, but not full membership, as you still can't fully participate (Seamus' dad).  In fact,  the Wizards are a little reminiscent of a white expat community in Asia... almost totally self-contained, with minimalist contact with the locals in whose world they live, and, for most, a generally uncomprehending, superior attitude toward them.  Our ways are better, our technology is more advanced.  Some of course strive to make friends with them and learn their quaint ways (Arthur Weasley), but most aren't interested.

(my my, when I heard Pauline Hanson {now-discredited Australian politician promoting a racist agenda} whingeing that "Asians form ghettos (in white Australia) and don't assimilate", how I wanted to show her a couple of white expat communities in Asia...)

Of course, Wizards do speak a common language with Muggles and look no different (dress aside), so perhaps a better comparison is an elite secret society.  Err... err... the Freemasons, maybe?  (don't know enough about them to use this comparison).

Anyway.

Presumably, until 1692 or thereabouts, Wizards and Muggles mingled in their daily lives and were exposed to similar influences.  They would, to a much greater extent, have been exposed to the same cultural influences, shaping their ideas about things like appropriate ages for adulthood, marriage and so on.  Afterwards, however, the Wizards cut themselves off, and hence things like eckletricity and escapators are cultural curios for them.  They still use candles and broomsticks.  There is *some* evidence of information, social and technological, passing between the two (e.g. wireless, Muggle clothing for children, flush toilets, etc.).  However...

By cutting themselves off from Muggles, Wizards quite likely underwent a kind of cultural fossilisation.  Rather like Greek immigrants who came out to Australia in the 1950s, and are still living by 1950s Greek values, while Greece itself has moved on.  In other words, the trade-oriented, no higher education, age of adulthood and marriage and so forth in Wizard society may well have a lot left over from 17th century Muggledom which seems odd to us 21st century Muggles.  It's also possible that there have been windows of Muggle influence on Wizarding society since the 17th century, and current Wizard values and institutions represent a combination of borrowings from different eras (rather like the influence of Chinese on Japanese... you can date when a character was borrowed from Chinese by its pronunciation).

OK, all you historians out there... what was considered an appropriate age for marriage in late 17th century middle class Britain (assuming that Wizards were middle class)?  BTW, please forgive any dubious comments and outright mistakes in this post... I'm very weak on history, as I've mentioned before!

I've certainly read that the concept of "adolescence" is an invention of the 20th century, which has been reinforced by compulsory education until the mid to late teens and legal definitions of adulthood in the mid teens to early twenties.  Once upon a time, I'm pretty sure "adulthood", sexual maturity and the beginning of one's working life were more or less synonymous (even my grandmother, born in 1917, left school to start work at 13).  Interestingly, Hogwarts seems to have an older, vocational kind of system mixed with a 20th century "education for all" philosophy.  Or is it an "education for the magically gifted, vocational education for the rest", as suggested by Neville's relatives' worries and Stan Shunpike?  Based on GoF, my suspicion regarding the "adulthood at 17" line is that this is the age at which wizards reach *magical* maturity, in the full adult powers sense, and was hence pegged as the age of adulthood in the early Wizard world.  A 7 year secondary education has since intervened and inhibited the development of "maturity" in other areas (which would once have been stimulated by entering the workforce, marriage, etc, at 14 or so), but has not (yet?) resulted in any change in the age of majority.

Which is a long-winded way of making a point on Heidi's EW... Wizards evidently have different ideas from us about age (long lifespan notwithstanding), and this may well be because their attitudes in this area stem from an earlier era in Muggle history.

(not that I think Harry marrying Ginny at 17 and 16 is a great idea either, but all the same...)

Tabouli.


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




From gideoner4 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 13 10:48:13 2002
From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (gideoner4)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:48:13 -0000
Subject: anti-SHIP: Ginny griping
In-Reply-To: <F141A3iW9LxIjQAZDm200014c52@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a4dg9d+j0ii@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35130

 Quote form a post by J:
*** We have very little canon to go on here. My hope is that OotP 
will give us 
> more information and bring some people back around to appreciating 
her as a 
> character. *** 


My take on that:

I admit that I'm kind of partial to Ginny because she is a Weasley, 
and I love all the Weasleys.  


But from an objective point of view, I can't help but agree. I don't 
know Ginny that well, but I did notice that she handled well her 
disappointment that she's going with Neville when she had a chance 
to go with Harry.

She may be a giggly kid in book 2 but I have seen her improved in 
book 4. Too bad she was nowhere in sight in book 3.

And I kind of pity her. I can't help but think that she personifies 
unrequited schoolgirl puppy love. I've gone through that during my 
early teenage years. I can almost imagine Ginny's pain seeing Harry 
dance with Paavati during the Yule Ball, while knowing that it was 
really Cho Harry wanted to ask to the dance, and knowing that she, 
Ginny, could have had a chance to be Harry's date if not for Neville.

I wish to se her grow up and what kind of role she would play in 
book 5, since JK says that Ginny will play a greater role in OotP.





From pen at pensnest.co.uk  Wed Feb 13 11:03:00 2002
From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:03:00 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fan Readings & Subversion (WAS: Where's the
 Canon -- Part Two)
In-Reply-To: <a4chdq+ul2b@eGroups.com>
References: <294CE14F-1DD9-11D6-9B09-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <l03130303b88ff568813a@[161.33.128.215]>

No: HPFGUIDX 35131

Porphyria (I think) said:

>> Does anyone have any issues with the writing style?

Elkins said:

><wince>
>
>
>
>Er...do I get lynched around here if I say that I do sometimes
>have some problems with the writing style?
>
>What can I say?  I think that Rowling's an excellent story-teller.
>Her prose style, on the other hand, leaves something to be desired. 
>All IMO, of course.  Obviously I read the books with enjoyment, so
>it can't be all that big a problem for me.


I find that *listening* to the books has made a difference in how I
appreciate JKR's style.

I'm a lazy and greedy reader - I hurtle through a book to find out what
happens, thus missing all sorts of details on the way.  Second and
subsequent readings are slower, but my bad habit of sliding over paragraphs
of 'description' is hard to break.

Listening to a book (the Stephen Fry versions, in case it matters to
anyone) forces me to experience the story one word at a time.  I have
developed an increased respect for JKR's plotting, characterisation and
misdirecting abilities, but I have developed something like hatred for...

... oh, it's cruel, cos once I've mentioned it, *you* won't be able not to
notice it either...

...the way Harry has so often *never/ever seen/done/heard/tasted [FITB] in
his life*.    Argh.  One day, when I feel particularly nitpickery and
obsessive, I shall start a list of these.

The other thing that annoys me is word repetition.  I know that 'thesaurus
disease' is undesirable, but then again, when listening to a sentence or
paragraph in which a word is re-used several times, I get cross.  I mean,
repeating 'blast-ended skrewt' is reasonable, as there can be no synonyms,
but why repeat, oh, say, 'excellent'?

It seems to me that someone in the editing department could be a little
more observant.

Pen






From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Wed Feb 13 11:35:09 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:35:09 -0000
Subject: Class Scheulues
In-Reply-To: <a4d0cc+vkkf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4dj1d+c555@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35132

Psion_x wrote:
> After reading Goblet of Fire I noticed that when the Beauxbatons
and 
> Drumstrang students arrive at Hogwarts on October 30th at 6 p.m 
> classes end a half hour early. 
> So this means the last class of the day finishes at 6.00 p.m but 
> classes start in the morning at 9.am, which means the students have 
>  a nine hour long day. 
> Although there are breaks between classes these seem at the most
ten 
> minutes, so how does it add up to nine hours? As far as I can
figure 
> out in Harry's Fourth year he has three/four classes a day.So in 
> order to add up to nine hours each class would have to be two hours 
> long, a double lesson (which I take to mean as two lessons back to 
> back) FOUR hours long and lunch THREE hours long!
> Does anyone else have theory's on how this could work?...

People here have noticed problems with the class schedules before.  
For one thing, any class that's required for all 7 years would have
28 
sections (or 14 double sections), and we're not sure how a one
teacher 
covers all those sections. (And in PoA, Snape somehow manages to 
substitute for Lupin, too!)

However, I see a couple of things that may help with the problem you 
bring up.  First, there seems to be some time between the end of 
classes on Friday and the arrival of the foreign students -- the 
students have time to go to their dorms and change.  So, perhaps 
classes end substantially earlier than 6 pm.  Also, it may be that 
*sometimes* Harry and Co. have classes back-to-back, with just a
short 
break, but other times have unscheduled chunks of time.  As a 
hypothetical example, maybe they have two classes Tuesday morning,
but 
then no more classes until Wednesday, or something.  Most college 
students will be familiar with type of pattern.





From lucy at luphen.co.uk  Wed Feb 13 12:38:53 2002
From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:38:53 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fan Readings & Subversion (WAS: Where's the Canon -- Part Two)
References: <294CE14F-1DD9-11D6-9B09-000393465128@mindspring.com> <l03130303b88ff568813a@[161.33.128.215]>
Message-ID: <009701c1b48b$655e0980$b0ae1e3e@stephen>

No: HPFGUIDX 35133

>Pen said:

>The other thing that annoys me is word repetition.  I know that 'thesaurus
disease' is undesirable, but then again, when listening to a sentence or
paragraph in which a word is re-used several times, I get cross.  I mean,
repeating 'blast-ended skrewt' is reasonable, as there can be no synonyms,
but why repeat, oh, say, 'excellent'?

>It seems to me that someone in the editing department could be a little
more observant.

That's weird, because I've often been impressed by just how often JKR uses more complex words than you would usually expect to find in a book which many people describe as 'mainly for children'. I can't come up with any immediate examples, but I've often been reading or listening and thought to myself, 'now that'll improve children's use of language, to know that there are so many different ways of putting something'!

Lucy the Drifty


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




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Wed Feb 13 10:32:57 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 21:32:57 +1100
Subject: Good Ship LOLLIPOPS customs declaration
Message-ID: <004301c1b48e$dfdc5880$371cddcb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35134

Chris the Customs Officer (hmm... this has me wondering about the etymology of the work "customs"... did a customs officer once make sure you were going to live by local customs?):

> Where is the evidence (or the canonical suggestion) that Snape played
Quiddich? Snape refereeing Quiddich is simply a teacher stepping in
with teacher authority to regulate student behaviour. I don't think
that is evidence for having playing that sport.
>
>O Captain, before I sup at the Captain's Table, I would like to see
the Menu.

Contrary to the assumptions of many, the only initiation dish on the LOLLIPOPS menu required to gain a boarding pass for this stately SHIP is to believe that Love Of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Severus.  If you believe that a contributing factor to Snape's bitter, cranky behaviour was the fact that he was in love with Harry's mother, you are welcome aboard.
Beyond that, the Ship has an a la carte menu.  Put together any dishes you like from the ingredients JKR has supplied, and the chefs will cater to your tastes!

You do not have to believe devoutly in my Snape bio... this was just an illustration of how LOLLIPOPS could provide a plausible backstory which fits in with all available evidence.  Snape may or may not have played Quidditch.  However, we *do* know that he was jealous of James' Quidditch ability, whether because James was better at it than him or because he didn't play Quidditch at all (and resented the jock getting the girl of his dreams).  LOLLIPOPS does not presuppose any actual relationship between Snape and Lily, can happily accommodate Snape rigging an ambush of his former DE colleagues, and does not preclude Snape's turning back to Dumbledore's side being the result of a moral crisis (not a simple "my girl's there so I'm going back" decision... I mean, really!  Where do those LOLLIPOPS detractors get this straw man stuff?).

You do not need to believe that Love Of Lily was responsible for every event in Snape's life since he met her.  LOLLIPOPS welcomes all types, from those who believe that it accounts only for Snape's attitude to Harry to those who believe Snape's crush was behind his behaviour during the Prank, his decision to join the Death Eaters and even his decision to leave them before the Potters were killed.  As Captain, I have a duty to come up with backstories which give LOLLIPOPS the most significant role possible in the turn of events, but I have an open door policy for my passengers and crew.

Captain Tabouli.


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




From muridae at muridae.co.uk  Wed Feb 13 14:08:17 2002
From: muridae at muridae.co.uk (Muridae)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:08:17 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pronunciation of Fortescue
Message-ID: <200202130908.AA226623790@muridae.co.uk>

No: HPFGUIDX 35135


John Walton wrote:

>coriolan_cmc2001 wrote:
>
>> I recently wrote a filk in which I assumed that the surname of
>> Florean Fortescue (he of the ice cream parlor in PoA, Chap. 4) was a
>> three-syllable word (For-tes-cue). It now occurs to me that perhaps
>> it is a two-syllable word (For-tesk). Could someone enlighten me?
>> 
>> - CMC (who needs to invest in a set of Dale or Fry)
>
>Get the Fry, Caius. At least he can speak in a decent English accent, 
>cf. Dale.

Although Jim Dale *ought* to be able to do a passable English accent,
since he originally hails from Northamptonshire. I know, because my father was in the same year as him at Kettering Grammar School.

Perhaps he's been in the US so long now that he's forgotten? He wouldn't be the first...

>If I remember the lesson I had in "funny names and how to pronounce 
>them" at school, it *should* be FORR-t at ss-kyoo.

That's certainly how I'd pronounce it.

-- 
Muridae




From ftah3 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 13 14:25:16 2002
From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:25:16 -0000
Subject: Fan Readings & Subversion (WAS: Where's the Canon -- Part Two)
In-Reply-To: <a4chdq+ul2b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4dt0c+ob7a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35136

Elkins wrote:
>I was fairly impressed, in fact, with the way that in the 
> last book, JKR managed to suggest some rather adult nastiness 
without 
> actually straying from the PG path.  

I agree.  I've been impressed throughout the series by the way 
Rowling addresses the kinds of 'adult' themes that children in real 
life will run into, rather than simply spinning out cotton candy 
plots and denouments.

>The 'genre-soup' aspect of the 
> books is certainly one of the things that I find most appealing 
about 
> them,

I *love* genre-soup.  And as for mixing genres in general, I find I 
prefer books which do that as a matter of course.  Sci-fi or fantasy 
with a bit of mystery; mystery with a bit of supernatural or comedy; 
history with an interpretive, genre-like spin...all good!

> Er...do I get lynched around here if I say that I do sometimes
> have some problems with the writing style?

No!  But I disagree.  I find no problem with her writing style.  
Well, maybe one or two problems; but I don't really expect any 
writing to be perfect, and I can appreciate that most writers have 
quirks ~ words they like, styles they use, that kind of thing.  
Rowling's quirks so far haven't really even registered for me.  I 
really enjoy her easy-going, colloquial style, which yet uses 
language that doesn't expect the average reader, child or adult, to 
be borderline illiterate.  She's frugal with text, and tends to use 
only the one or few words necessary to imply what she needs to get 
across.  

> Now, to my mind a "shriek" is a very specific *type* of high-
pitched 
> raised voice.  The verb has an entire body of implications and 
> associations connected to it as a matter of connotation, and 
> JKR's "shrieks" don't always seem to quite match up with these. 

Disagree.  I think she uses the word so much because of the large 
body of common implications, as *well* as for it's onomatopoeiac 
value and it's value as hyperbole.  Sometimes the character shrieks, 
in a high-pitched raised voice.  Sometimes the character shrieks in 
that the noise they make is just absolutely annoying much like the 
sound of the word 'shriek.' And sometimes the situation is being 
described by the author in an exaggerated manner, and where a real 
life person might only be yelling, the character is said to be 
shrieking either because hyperbole sets the scene more swiftly and 
neatly (and with more brevity), or because a bit of comedy is wanted, 
or possibly because the point is that the character is overreacting 
and so a term that implies overreacting works best.  (This multi-
leveled use of words, dialogue, scenes, etc. is something I see all 
over the place in Rowling's style, and is something I really enjoy.)

> "Being Driven Right To The Brink of Sanity Draco" is another 
example 
> of this.  I have a strangely divided mind when it comes to those 
> scenes which illustrate The Very Worst Of Draco Malfoy.  

Draco, like Hagrid, Snape, the Dursleys, and many other characters, 
are, I feel, often caricatures.  Rowling paints with very broad 
strokes, resulting in a vibrant and sometimes larger-than-life and 
exaggerrated story.  I honestly do not think the reader is supposed 
to take certain things as seriously as I think some do.  

Yes, the Dursleys mistreat Harry terribly, and if this was a child in 
real life I would call Child Protective Services in a heartbeat.  
However, I think the Dursleys in the story are little more than plot 
devices, ways of describing Harry's life and ways of giving Harry the 
opportunity to grow as a character.

Snape is not some tragic & misunderstood hero, nor is he an evil man 
who shouldn't be allowed to teach children.  He's a fab character who 
might play an important good-guy role because it would be a good plot 
device, and who has spit-flying rages because it's a wild and 
effective element in a hoppin' and tense scene.

Hagrid is a big loveable guy who also whines, drinks and becomes 
outrageously violent not because we're supposed to take him terribly 
seriously, but because he's a terribly exaggerated character and it's 
fun, and his oddball nature serves as a (say it with me) plot device 
on occasion.

As for Draco Malfoy, he's a rotten kid, and his bad attitude and his 
propaganda-spewing moments could be the product of his upbringing, 
could be a product of being a stereotypical but exaggerated bully, or 
could be a parallel with Snape (the *only* possiblity I see of any 
Draco-redemption foreshadowing, actually).  But I don't think he's 
nuts; he's simply as exaggerated as any of the other sideline 
characters.  He's colorful.

All of the above is, naturally, my own opinion.  But I enjoyed 
rambling about it, because it's the way I approach reading the books, 
as well as the way I generally approach discussions on this list (and 
is why I might unintentionally come across as flip sometimes).  
Whee!  Fun discussion!

Mahoney
P.S.  Beg pardon for the overuse of the word 'exaggerate(d)' ~ my 
only excuse is that I didn't feel like coming up with a decent 
synonym because I'm sometimes very lazy.  :-D




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 13 15:34:02 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:34:02 -0000
Subject: Prefects? 
In-Reply-To: <a4bs2o+5m1g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4e11a+1lal@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35137

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> 
> So, I'm predicting no prefect plot developments in Order of the 
> Phoenix. And then, in the next book?
> 
> I propose Ronald Weasley.

Gee, who do we know who has excellent grades, gets along with (most 
of) the teachers, hates to skip classes, follows the rules (unless 
absolutely necessary), and has enough inner self confidence to take a 
leadership role within her house?  I'm certain that Hermione will not 
only becomes a prefect, but Head Girl as well.





From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Feb 13 15:51:36 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:51:36 -0000
Subject: Why Suspect Lupin?  (WAS: Snape, Lupin's Mistakes Again)
In-Reply-To: <00a601c1b40b$c33ed780$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a4e228+7bg7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35138

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" <huntleyl at m...> wrote:
> ELKINS SAID: 
> > "'They call it the Dementor's Kiss,' said Lupin, with a slightly 
> > twisted smile."
> 
> THEN EILEEN SAID:
> >"And at that moment, I was crying, "Harry! Harry! >It's Sirius 
Black! 
> >When will you realize?" "Slightly twisted." That is >awful.
> 
> Now, I am not going to try to deny for a second that Lupin Has Edge. 
 However, I interpreted that line in PoA to mean something entirely 
different.  Perhaps it's because I never thought that Lupin could 
>actually be Black (were we being led to believe this? there was a 
red-herring? *looks alarmed* I must've missed it. *depressed sigh* I 
>was never any good at fishing),

Yeah, I was a little disappointed at first that he wasn't. Though by 
that time I was so much in love with Lupin's character that I was 
fully prepared for the Sirius Black who I thought he was to be 
redeemed. :-)


 >but I always thought that the 
"slightly twisted smile" in question was not meant to be "twisted" in 
>a psycho-homicidal way, but in a grimacing, half-smile kind of way.  
As if Lupin were recognizing, in his subtle way, the irony of the name 
>(a soul-sucking black magic described as a "kiss"?!) and of the 
situation.  Also, when I went back and re-read the books, I figured it 
also having something to do with his internal struggle over the entire 
>Sirius's fate.  I mean, Lupin must've wanted justice for the Potters, 
but Sirius was also his friend, and the idea of the kiss being 
>administered to someone he had loved so dearly must have hurt as 
well. 
 Lupin seems to me to be the type of person to respond to such an 
>inner conflict with a melancholy, ironic smile. 

Well, exactly but it's still spooky. FWIW, I never got the feeling, as 
with Barty Crouch's "insane smiles" that it was psycho-homicidal. 
After all, since I thought he was Black, I was sure there was more to 
Black than we had previously discovered, though I was sure Black had 
turned in Lily and James to Voldemort. 

> ^_~ I think that if any of the Marauders were ever dismayed by any 
of the other Marauder's behavior/manner, it would Lupin wagging his 
>finger at Sirius.  Definitely not the other way around.

Wagging fingers is not Sirius's jurisdiction. Anyone (except for 
Harry) would laugh at it. :-) But, Lupin could creep out even his 
friends sometimes. He sure creeps out Harry. Add that to Pettigrew's 
meddling, and several suspicious events, and we've got a recipe for 
Sirius eventually suspecting Lupin.

> It's probably because Lupin is portrayed as quiet, thoughtful, 
sensitive, good with kids, and the like.  Whereas Sirius is, as you 
>said, kind of unstable, and Snape is just an... *coughs very 
hard*...you know what I was going to say.  Which one would you like to 
>be the "father of your children" (okay, that was sappy) and the like? 
 Although I stand by my conviction that Sirius IS turning into a 
>devoted, caring father-figure for Harry.
 
Exactly. Snape and Black are unstable. :-)

Eileen




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 13 16:05:12 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:05:12 -0000
Subject: SHIP: R/H
In-Reply-To: <a4c68o+gngd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4e2ro+2j1a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35139

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
 
>The Weasleys  are 
> very aware of their pureblood status, and some of their 
> comments about Muggles are a bit condescending. It could be 
> Molly and Arthur aren't  quite as open-minded as they think they 
> are.  It's one thing to welcome a Muggleborn into your home and 
> quite another to have one join the family. What if Ron reveals his 
> affection for Hermione and his parents try to break it up? 

1) I think Arthur and Molly are open-minded enough to accept a muggle-
born witch into the family.  Arthur enjoyed spending time with the 
Grangers in PoA, and the Weasleys invite Hermione to spend over 2 
weeks living with them in GoF.  And remember at the end of GoF, what 
Molly says to Dumbledore, "We know what Fudge is.  It's Arthur's 
fondness for Muggles that has held him back at the Ministry all these 
years.  Fudge thinks he lacks proper wizarding pride."  Fudge is a 
bigot; Molly and Arthur try not to be.  Can they be condescending 
sometimes?  Yes.  Would they be less than thrilled with Hermione in 
the family? No. 

2) Even if Ron does end up with Hermione,she isn't likely to be the 
first muggle-born daughter-in-law of the Weasleys.  Remember, 
Penelope, Percy's girlfriend, is muggle-born too!

-Jennifer, who thinks Ron will not marry anyone because she's afraid 
poor Ron is doomed to die saving Harry.  




From naama_gat at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 13 16:07:03 2002
From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:07:03 -0000
Subject: SHIP: Problems with the concept of G/H
In-Reply-To: <a4c031+4nkb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4e2v7+i0rm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35140


Just picking on random points that caught me eye.

Heidy said:
> 
> And I thought I'd made it clear in my prior post that I would find 
an 
> engagement at that age to be equally Ewwwwwy. But again, that's 
just 
> MHO. 

And added several paragraphs later:
<snip>
< Ginny needs to grow into 
> herself, and if she ends up in a romance with Harry in Book 5 or 
even 
> in Book 6, she'll never do it. She's too much of a fangirl - even 
you 
> said that to go to the Yule Ball with Harry would be a "dream 
date" - 
> and if she doesn't get a chance to grow up in, IMHO, books five 
*and* 
> six, there's no way that any romance with Harry could have a 
glimmer 
> of realism. But if you want to create a predictive gloat, I'll give 
> you mine: Ginny in Book 7 will bear little resemblance to the 
person 
> you've characterised in your two posts so far today.


You know, I don't quite see the logic of this. Why are you so sure 
that being in love/engaged at a young age precludes development of 
self? It does happen, of course, but I think it happens because the 
attachment to the boyfriend (in this case) functions as an emotional 
compensation - for lack of love at home, lack of self-confidence. I 
know two people who ended up marrying their high-school sweethearts. 
In fact, the guy married a girl who was his friend since the age of 
six (or even before) and they've practically always been together. I 
know both of them and believe me, they are very well developed as 
*individuals.*  I think of Ginny as a healthy person - based on her 
characterization (slim, I know) and my knowledge of her home life. So 
I don't think she is in danger of forming the kind of relationship 
you forsee.
Ginny begins by having a childish crush on Harry. Obviously it 
wouldn't be very unhealthy for her to have a romantic-sexual 
relationship with him based on such a crush. But don't you think the 
crush might change as she grows up? Crushes end with disillusion, but 
they can develop to real love, if the crushee (what's the word?) 
proves, with familiarity, to have substance and worth. Harry has 
substance - he is good, kind, brave, smart and sensitive. Why is it 
so ewwwy that Ginny should grow to truly love him *as she matures*? 
And if they remain compatible as they both grow and change, why 
shouldn't they remain in love to the point when they wish to marry 
each other? 
I think Harry would make a wonderful mate (see qualities above). Yes, 
he is emotionally scarred but he is not emotionally crippled. I think 
that's an important distinction, by the way. To have known pain and 
suffering is not the same as being traumatized by pain to the degree 
that you can't handle emotions, intimacy, etc. And yes, pain and 
suffering can be a bond, a very strong one. I'm not saying it can be 
the sole basis of a lasting romantic relationship but it is a bond. 
The fact that you look into the other person's eyes and see an 
understanding that hardly anybody else can have ... believe me, it 
means a lot. 

> Actually, she threw it into a stall, and it just landed in the 
> toilet. And what a stupid place to throw out a book! It's never 
going 
> to get through the plumbing! What was she thinking? 
> (Possible, theorizing) Answer: She wasn't. She was fulfilling the 
> task Tom had set to her - leave the diary in the room where the 
> entrance was. 

Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold. The book was small and would 
easily have gone through the plumbing. What made the book flush out 
was Myrtle's tantrum at having had the book thrown at her. And Riddle 
could never have predicted that. Which leaves the act as a heroic 
attempt by Ginny to free herself of the diary's bewitchment.


Naama who likes Ginny, so there!








From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Feb 13 16:10:43 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:10:43 -0000
Subject: Prefects?
In-Reply-To: <a4e11a+1lal@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4e363+mjkv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35141

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jklb66" <jklb66 at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> > 
> > So, I'm predicting no prefect plot developments in Order of the 
> > Phoenix. And then, in the next book?
> > 
> > I propose Ronald Weasley.
> 
> Gee, who do we know who has excellent grades, gets along with (most 
> of) the teachers, hates to skip classes, follows the rules (unless 
> absolutely necessary), and has enough inner self confidence to take 
a 
> leadership role within her house?  I'm certain that Hermione will 
not 
> only becomes a prefect, but Head Girl as well.

Didn't address my reasoning did you? :-) I wasn't basing that on any 
character strengths of the above Mr. Weasley, only that one of the 
most important aspects of HP books seem to be the throw-a-way lines, 
and Ron's the only one who's (laughingly) been fingered for the job. 

Eileen




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Feb 13 16:17:45 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:17:45 -0000
Subject: SHIP: R/H
In-Reply-To: <a4e2ro+2j1a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4e3j9+vjfp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35142

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jklb66" <jklb66 at y...> wrote:
> 2) Even if Ron does end up with Hermione,she isn't likely to be the 
> first muggle-born daughter-in-law of the Weasleys.  Remember, 
> Penelope, Percy's girlfriend, is muggle-born too!

Penelope. OK, I want Penelope back. She served a very useful purpose: 
the faint suggestion that Percy did SOMEHOW have a life. And she's 
perfect for him. After all, she did listen to his schemes for 
reforming law enforcement when no-one else would. She also loosens him 
up slightly. He was acting more like Gred and Forge when he placed 
that bet with her, and one of his two recorded jokes is to her. 

Also, if they were to get engaged or marry, it'd be more evidence for 
the "Hogwarts Marriages" file. :-)

Sad to say, though, I think Percy will die, and, therefore, JKR won't 
have the stomach to develop the relationship with Penny.

Eileen




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 13 16:24:05 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:24:05 -0000
Subject: Crouch Sr. under imperius
In-Reply-To: <a4c94h+lnrc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4e3v5+111v2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35143

> It would also seem that Imperio'ed people are capable of 
> following rather complex commands -- even ones that rely on a 
certain 
> degree of thought and volition.  What were Crouch's "orders?"  I 
get 
> the impression they were something along the lines of: "Act like 
your 
> normal self, don't tell anyone what's really going on, fulfill your 
> function as an official for this event, and then come straight 
home, 
> Barty -- no stopping for drinks."   
> 
> -- Elkins

Add two more "orders" to the list.  "Interpret the rules so Harry 
gets to be in the tournament.  Give Harry a high score in every task."

Given the possiblity that the Imperius curse can be fought by very 
strong-willed people, it seems a needless risk to send Crouch Sr. to 
Hogwarts for part of the tournament; it would have been so much 
simpler to let him have "an accident" and be rid of him.  So why does 
Voldy keep him alive, imperio'ed, and right under Dumbledore's nose?  
Why, to carry out those 2 orders, of course.  Reread the scene in the 
antechamber right after the Goblet chose 4 champions.  It's Crouch 
Sr. who says that Harry MUST compete.  Then, at the first task, he 
gives Harry a 9.  Very high, but not suspiciously so (unlike Ludo's 
10).



Admin- Sorry for the multiple short posts; I keep finding more things 
I want to respond to. ;)




From pollux46 at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 13 16:54:07 2002
From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:54:07 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?C.U.P.I.D.=92S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R.:a_new_SHIP_explaining_Snape's_redemption.?=
Message-ID: <a4e5ng+mqmk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35144

                

             Well, I'm right in the middle of my module exams so I 
obviously have nothing better to do than speculate endlessly on the 
animosity between Sirius and Snape or ponder on why the latter denied 
Voldemort, let alone write compositions analyzing the situation, but 
let's face it, what's more interesting: Harry Potter or "A History of 
Political and Constitutional Institutions"? Errr...tough one...(And 
there I was thinking I was a Hermione!)


                The thing is that I've been completely involuntarily 
("must concentrate, really must concentrate...") giving a lot of 
thought to the recent debate on the reasons behind Snape's 
redemption. All of them have their merits--sucks up to originators of 
theories she's about to refuse;-)-- I kinda like George, it's true. 
He's logical and level-headed and gives quite a realistic view of the 
matter: In order for somebody to deny a "cause" they might not really 
have fully endorsed it's principles in the first place and then 
slowly but surely they will eventually turn. Right. But errmm
 that's 
also what I have against George. Where's all the glorious, traumatic 
drama? No,no George won't do.


            Then there's L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. No lack of drama there! 
In fact it's oozing out of every porthole! But, ahh
 Well
TEWW EWW to 
be TREWW!!! And I don't need Lily museums in Snape's dungeons to 
think that (urg,urg, who came up with that gruesome picture that's 
been tormenting me ever since I read it by popping up in my mind at 
unexpected intervals?) No, my problem with L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. lies in 
it's very core. I just can't accept even the idea that there could 
even have been even a very slight possibility that anything could 
ever come between James and Lily even if it only had a snowball's 
chance in hell anyway! It makes me flinch! I don't have any canon to 
rest against here except that ,well, in the books it's always James & 
Lily, the Potters, your mother and father, your parents. They're 
always together and in my mind they always were and nobody would even 
think of developing a crush on either one of them just because ,well, 
they're *taken*! 


             No, I think that all in all I shall stick to my initial 
explanation of events, a little theory of my own that I have been 
nursing for  almost two years now: Severus fell in love with, not 
James's, but Sirius's girl!


            To say the absolute truth this did not start as an 
attempt to explain Snape's redemption at all. Instead it was 
triggered from the certainty that there is more to Snape and Sirius's 
hatred of each other than meets the eye. Somehow it seems to me to be 
more...personal than that between Snape and Lupin, or even Snape and 
James. 

           Of course Severus despises Remus. But this is more of 
a "he's friends with my enemies and the werewolf that tried to eat 
me" hatred. He dislikes James. But that appears to be jealousy more 
than anything else. Snape hates what James represents -?the arrogant, 
Quidditch-Cup-Winning, strutting kid that's more popular then he is--
more than that James himself. (Somewhat like Malfoy and Harry: Malfoy 
initially tried to *make friends* with Harry. And only when Harry 
spurned him did he turn to taunting him.) But Sirius and Snape...well 
they can hardly bear shaking hands even under Dumbledore's command!


          And then you've got the Prank. Somehow (Why, oh, why I 
wonder!) "Well, the slimeball didn't wash his hair enough so he 
deserved it" doesn't cut it for me. There's got to be something more 
there. Sooooo...cherchez la femme!

         Now I realize throwing your rivals in love to hungry 
werewolves is not exactly a morally acceptable way of getting rid of 
them, but at least this theory leaves gives room for more backstory 
on the incident, a *real* explanation of it,so to speak.


         The 2nd reason I like this scenario is that the books are 
practically clamoring for more women of the Marauders' age. I can see 
them on my shelf right now at the other side of the room virtually 
throwing a tantrum for more witches in their 30's! I mean there's 
only Lily! And, well, nobody can get it out of my head the Sirius 
Black- handsome, laughing, motorcycle-riding, pronounced by J. 
K.Rowling herself as "dead sexy"- Sirius Black had a girlfriend! Hey, 
*I* have a huge crush on him and for me he doesn't even exist! Also, 
what, was Lily friendless? She must have had girlfriends! We've heard 
so much about James's friends why not have a go on Lily's now? 
Someone some time ago was speculating about how the rest of the 
Marauders must have re--acted to James's falling for Lily saying that 
they can't have taken to it too well. Well, what if it wasn't only 
Lily invading their close-knit group? What if all the boys were eager 
to get on good terms with the girls? What if James wasn't the only 
one falling in love? I know that this sounds suspiciously familiar 
(One Bid Happy Marauder's Gang anyone?), but the end of the story 
wasn't exactly "happy" was it? And on top of all of that, Snape needs 
a girl too. She would explain why he turned to V. in the first place, 
why he turned back, how he ended up so bitter and crusty and also 
prove there's more to him than that!


              One more argument in favour of this SHIP: There is one 
phrase in PoA that's always puzzled me. McGonagall says that when the 
Potters went into hiding Black was planning to do so likewise. What 
got into them all suddenly after 11 fearless years, to make them 
decide they must flee? And if Black was following the Potter's 
example why not anyone else as well? His girlfriend perhaps? And 
maybe it was *her* danger that gave Severus the final nudge towards 
the Light Side?


              There is one last reason I like this theory so much: 
just think of the dramatic possibilities! I've always felt sorry for 
poor Remus. After all in one night he lost three friends: 2 died and 
the other was charged with their murder! But, oh, how much more 
tragic it would be if Sirius was not just your best friend, but your 
fianc?! -?reaches for hankie and dabs eyes--, if the man you had 
decided to spend your life with turned out to be a spy for The Enemy! 
Oh, horror of horrors and tragedy of tragedies!


            Now this brand new SHIP of mine will naturally need a 
name. Inspired by Tabouli's acronym expertise I've hit on 
C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R.: Contrary to Unrequited Passion 
Infelicitously Devouring Severus, Black's Love of Unknown Damsel Gets 
Expected Response!!!


             And, now, after breaking a big bottle of Butterbeer on 
her side, I am at last ready to take a deep breath (Ahhhhhh!) and 
send her off into the dangerous seas of cyberspace no doubt to get 
bashed to pieces by piratical L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S.! And her plight 
becomes all the more desperate as her Captain must now desert her 
(permissible as Captain must be last to abandon SHIP and whole crew 
of C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. consists of ,errr,...1!) and throw 
herself into the dark waters of the Principles of American 
Constitutional Law where she will indubitably drown overwhelmed be 
incomprehensible theories...sigh...Anyone care to take over?


     gurgle, gurgle


     Charis Julia.





From ck32976 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 13 17:05:32 2002
From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:05:32 -0000
Subject: What is brave? (WAS Re: Snapers vs. Sirists; Snape knew about the passageway)
In-Reply-To: <a3s9kh+4e4v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4e6cs+qght@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35145

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> Snape isn't brave because he possibly feels brave? Now, I know that 
> you can be brave and not feel it, but since when did feeling it 
mean 
> you weren't brave?

    I just reread this post.   I must have only skimmed it quickly 
before, because I guess I didn't quite understand what you meant. 
    I didn't mean that Snape was not brave because he "feels" brave. 
I actually don't think that is what I said at all.  I was trying to 
say that snape was not acting out of bravery, he was acting out of 
revenge and the need to prove himself.  I don't think that Snape has 
never acted bravely, I just don't think that was the case in this 
particular instance.  I also don't think that he needed to fear Lupin 
at that point, because he knew that the moon had not 
been "revealed".  He saw Lupin going for the Whomping Willow, and saw 
it as his chance to show that he was right about Lupin.  He was not 
going with the express intent of giving him the potion.  

     Actually, now that I think about it.  Did Snape have the potion 
with him, or did he leave it in Lupin's office? I remember that Snape 
said that Lupin had forgotten to take the potion, and that's why 
Snape went to his (Lupin's) office.  If Snape had the potion with 
him, wouldn't he have given the potion to lupin?  I would think that 
while in the process of "turning Lupin in" he wouldn't really want 
him going and transforming on him. I don't know.  I just never 
thought about it before.  Can anyone shed a bit of light on this for 
me.  
Thanks!
Carrie 




From andrew_macian at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 13 17:16:02 2002
From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:16:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Potter Etexts
In-Reply-To: <20020213170632.42813.qmail@web21107.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20020213171602.93633.qmail@web9507.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35147

Greetings from Andrew!

Just when I'd thought the lessons taught by Harlan
Ellison were understood...

--- Ronald Rae Yu <ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com> wrote:
> (Is this supposed to be in HP-Announcements?)
> 
> Somebody asked me where to find the HP etexts, and I
> thought I might as well tell everyone.
{snip}

This is, of course, blatant copyright violation, and
thus against the law.

> 
> Note: I'm NOT endorsing book piracy. Etexts are for
> your personal use only, okay?

Then why are you aiding and abetting it?

Why not answer such questions by pointing out that
such sites are breaking both national and
international copyrights?

Why post the bloody URL here, if you're 'NOT
endorsing' such behavior?

Rowling (and myself, to a very lesser degree/amount)
gets paid for selling the fruits of her labour.  Why
encourage theft?

Drieux

...a *very* unhappy/angry pro....

=====
ICQ # 76184391

'Each game of chess means there's one less
      Variation left to be played;
 Each day got through means one or two less
      Mistakes remain to be made.'
      --'Chess' by Sir Tim Rice

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com



From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Feb 13 17:19:15 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:19:15 -0000
Subject: SHIP: R/H
In-Reply-To: <a4e2ro+2j1a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4e76j+l9bt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35148

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jklb66" <jklb66 at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
>  
> <snip> my argument that the Weasleys might not welcome 
Hermione as a daughter-in-law.

> 1) I think Arthur and Molly are open-minded enough to accept a 
muggle-born witch into the family.  Arthur enjoyed spending time 
with the  Grangers in PoA, and the Weasleys invite Hermione to 
spend over 2  weeks living with them in GoF.  And remember at 
the end of GoF, what  Molly says to Dumbledore, "We know what 
Fudge is.  It's Arthur's fondness for Muggles that has held him 
back at the Ministry all these years.  Fudge thinks he lacks 
proper wizarding pride."  Fudge is a 
> bigot; Molly and Arthur try not to be.  Can they be 
condescending  sometimes?  Yes.  Would they be less than 
thrilled with Hermione in the family? No. 

There's nothing in any of the above that makes me think the 
Weasleys see the Muggleborn as equals. Yes, the Weasleys try 
not to mistreat Muggles, but that's by no means the same thing. I  
have known people who were very eager to socialize with 
members of other ethnic groups, enjoyed learning about them, 
invited them to their homes and  fought hard against 
discrimination but were nonetheless extremely  negative about  
marriage with those same people.

> 
> 2) Even if Ron does end up with Hermione,she isn't likely to be 
the  first muggle-born daughter-in-law of the Weasleys.  
Remember,  Penelope, Percy's girlfriend, is muggle-born too!
> 

Yes, and what happened to her? There's not a word of her in 
GoF. Did Percy drop her because she'd hinder his advancement 
at the Ministry? Were Arthur and Molly secretly relieved? We don't 
know.

Pippin




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Feb 13 17:25:13 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:25:13 -0000
Subject: What is brave? (WAS Re: Snapers vs. Sirists; Snape knew about the passageway)
In-Reply-To: <a4e6cs+qght@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4e7hp+qau5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35149

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ck32976" <ck32976 at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> > Snape isn't brave because he possibly feels brave? Now, I know 
that 
> > you can be brave and not feel it, but since when did feeling it 
> mean 
> > you weren't brave?
> 
>     I just reread this post.   I must have only skimmed it quickly 
> before, because I guess I didn't quite understand what you meant. 
>     I didn't mean that Snape was not brave because he "feels" brave. 
> I actually don't think that is what I said at all.  I was trying to 
> say that snape was not acting out of bravery, he was acting out of 
> revenge and the need to prove himself.  I don't think that Snape has 
> never acted bravely, I just don't think that was the case in this 
> particular instance. 

Does anyone ever act particularly out of bravery? Bravery is an 
attribute of actions not their originator, unless you're really weird. 
 Revenge, especially, no matter what its morality, has always been 
thought to be a matter of especial bravery. 

For example, my Yahoo Identity. It took so long to get a normal one 
that wasn't already taken, that I finally just made up one that no-one 
would ever pick: lucky_kari, even though I've never thought of myself 
as Lucky Kari, a character from an Icelandic revenge epic, who runs 
around killing people who killed his friends and in-laws. :-)The 
anonymous Icelandic author thought this was really brave, and I 
suspect he's right, though I don't much care for the sort of morality 
shared by Kari, Flosi, Njal, Snorri, and the rest of the epic's 
characters.

> I also don't think that he needed to fear 
Lupin 
> at that point, because he knew that the moon had not 
> been "revealed".  He saw Lupin going for the Whomping Willow, and 
saw 
> it as his chance to show that he was right about Lupin.  

Lupin and Black were highly skilled wizards. Of course, he needed to 
fear them. Notice, though, how quickly he disposes of the two. Another 
argument for Snape's competence.

>He was not 
> going with the express intent of giving him the potion.  
> 
>      Actually, now that I think about it.  Did Snape have the potion 
> with him, or did he leave it in Lupin's office? I remember that 
Snape 
> said that Lupin had forgotten to take the potion, and that's why 
> Snape went to his (Lupin's) office.  If Snape had the potion with 
> him, wouldn't he have given the potion to lupin?  I would think that 
> while in the process of "turning Lupin in" he wouldn't really want 
> him going and transforming on him. I don't know.  I just never 
> thought about it before.  Can anyone shed a bit of light on this for 
> me.  

"You're wondering, perhaps, how I knew you were
here?" he said, his eyes glittering. "I've just been to your office,
Lupin. You forgot to take your potion tonight, so I took a gobletful
along. And very lucky I did... lucky for me, I mean. Lying on your
desk was a certain map. One glance at it told me all I needed to
know. I saw you running along this passageway and out of sight."

No mention of the potion's presence or non-presence, but it seems it's 
not there, since Snape doesn't seem concerned about it, and Lupin 
doesn't pick it up and drink it. 

So, we can add Snape to the number of people who were very stupid that 
night, eh?

Eileen




From heidit at netbox.com  Wed Feb 13 17:41:58 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:41:58 -0000
Subject: ADMIN: Re: Potter Etexts
In-Reply-To: <20020213171602.93633.qmail@web9507.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a4e8h6+rc1v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35150

Andrew was completely right. This is copyright infringement and the 
original post has already been removed from this site. No links to 
etexts, or for that matter, audio files of the audiobooks or files 
which contain the movie (which would be OT here anyway) will be 
allowed on HP4GU, as they violate the court's ruling in the Napster 
case.

I just finished posting to OT-Chatter about concerns by the mods 
regarding copyright infringement suits, and why there is no need to 
do anything that either clearly violates a court order or is contrary 
to the express wishes of an author (the latter was at issue on the OT 
Chatter list).

So please, don't do it. 
--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Andrew MacIan <andrew_macian at y...> wrote:
> Rowling (and myself, to a very lesser degree/amount)
> gets paid for selling the fruits of her labour.  Why
> encourage theft?

heidi, upon Mod request





From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 13 17:43:50 2002
From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:43:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Apology
Message-ID: <20020213174350.88026.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35151

Really, I'm sorry if what I did offended you or any
other people in the book publishing business. No hint
of sarcasm here. I understand you and I admit my fault
in spreading the site. My intention actually is to
have these texts accessible for quick referencing. I
myself own the books. I know these reasons do not
justify having the etexts. Again, my apologies.

-Ron Yu

Please, let us not discuss this further in the posts.
Anyway it doesn't belong here (apologies too to the
mods -- just want to clear things up in front of
everyone). Just mail any reactions directly to me. Thanks!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com



From uncmark at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 13 17:44:50 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:44:50 -0000
Subject: LV delusions of superiority Was (Re: Crouch Sr. under imperius)
In-Reply-To: <a4e3v5+111v2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4e8mi+svra@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35152

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jklb66" <jklb66 at y...> wrote:

> Given the possiblity that the Imperius curse can be fought by very 
> strong-willed people, it seems a needless risk to send Crouch Sr. 
> to Hogwarts for part of the tournament; it would have been so much 
> simpler to let him have "an accident" and be rid of him.  So why 
> does Voldy keep him alive, imperio'ed, and right under Dumbledore's 
> nose?  
> Why, to carry out those 2 orders, of course.  Reread the scene in 
> the antechamber right after the Goblet chose 4 champions.  It's 
> Crouch Sr. who says that Harry MUST compete.  Then, at the first 
> task, he gives Harry a 9.  Very high, but not suspiciously so 
> (unlike Ludo's 10).

Why all the intricate twists in his plan? LV echoes Ron's comments 
about the PolyJuice Poyion? 'Have you ever heard og a plan with so 
manu things that cam go wrong?'

Wormtail was right. LV could easily use another wizard that wan't as 
protected as Harry. They easily caught Moody, the master Auror. LV's 
flaw in reasoning is that he believes himself superior to all oyhers 
and simply doesn't consider that a 11 year old girl might resist or 
that Harry might have a chance at beating him. 

Harry's flaws (as seen by LV) are the key to his victories. He allies 
homself with mudbloods and mugglelovers who support him without 
question. One outcome of ChoS that is rarely mentioned is that Harry 
saved the only girl of a powerful family. The Weasley's would all 
fight for Harry without fear!

Harry antagonizes a powerful dark wizard to free a subhuman elf! Whay 
would any young wizard waste his time on that? Harry now has Dobby as 
a unquestioning ally. Elves at Hoqwart's would never interfere in 
Human issues, except for Dobby (who may inspire the others).

In ChofS Tom Riddle soesn't even consider the appearence of a Phoenix 
a Sorting Hat an issue. In GofF, he never looks into the significance 
that both Harry and him have phoenix wands.

The most unbelievable break in LV's plan (which convinces me of his 
psychosis) is that Tom Riddle, a half-blood muggleborne, is now 
driven to kill all muggles! Picture if Hitler's mother was secretly 
Jewish.

I'm wondering how significant Dumbledore's look was when he heard 
that LV had used Harry's blood. Is LV now vulnerable?

Does Fawkes and the Phoenix Wands have special significance as the 
next book is 'Order of the Phoenix?

Questions to consider.

Uncmark




From ck32976 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 13 18:05:11 2002
From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:05:11 -0000
Subject: What is brave? (WAS Re: Snapers vs. Sirists; Snape knew about the passageway)
In-Reply-To: <a4e7hp+qau5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4e9sn+95q2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35153

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> 
> Does anyone ever act particularly out of bravery? Bravery is an 
> attribute of actions not their originator, unless you're really 
weird. 
>  Revenge, especially, no matter what its morality, has always been 
> thought to be a matter of especial bravery. 

I see your point!  People are often brave without realizing it.  I 
don't personally see revenge as a brave thing. _Sometimes_ I think it 
is more brave NOT to seek revenge, but that's just my personal view 
of it.  (Not that I don't believe in revenge...)

> Lupin and Black were highly skilled wizards. Of course, he needed 
to 
> fear them. Notice, though, how quickly he disposes of the two. 
Another 
> argument for Snape's competence.
 
I certainly will not argue that Snape is incompetent, for I find him 
to be quite a powerful wizard. But again, I don't think that fear was 
foremost in his mind.  I am having trouble arguing this point.  I 
don't really know how to address it.  I know that "Because I just 
think so" is not a very good argument, but in this case, that is how 
I feel about Snape's being brave... He absolutely has done brave 
things (spying on LV), and I suppose that here there may have been 
some bravery.  I guess the point I'm trying to make is not 
neccessarily that he wasn't brave, but that bravery wasn't his 
motivation.  Does that make any sense at all? I apologize if it 
doesn't, but I am at a loss as to how else to explain what I'm 
thinking.

> 
> "You're wondering, perhaps, how I knew you were
> here?" he said, his eyes glittering. "I've just been to your office,
> Lupin. You forgot to take your potion tonight, so I took a gobletful
> along. And very lucky I did... lucky for me, I mean. Lying on your
> desk was a certain map. One glance at it told me all I needed to
> know. I saw you running along this passageway and out of sight."
> 
> No mention of the potion's presence or non-presence, but it seems 
it's 
> not there, since Snape doesn't seem concerned about it, and Lupin 
> doesn't pick it up and drink it. 

I thought maybe he left Lupin's office in such a hurry that he may 
have left it on the desk. 

> So, we can add Snape to the number of people who were very stupid 
that 
> night, eh?

It seems to me that stupidity was running rampant on the Hogwarts 
campus that fateful evening.  Although we would probably not have 
much of a story if everything was cleared up nicely at the end of 
PoA, would we?  I suppose we need to be thankful, although it is fun 
to wonder what if...


Carrie




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Feb 13 18:16:52 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:16:52 -0000
Subject: What is brave? (WAS Re: Snapers vs. Sirists; Snape knew about the passageway)
In-Reply-To: <a4e6cs+qght@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4eaik+dv8o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35154

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ck32976" <ck32976 at y...> wrote:
 I was trying to 
> say that snape was not acting out of bravery, he was acting out of 
> revenge and the need to prove himself.  

I'm sure thoughts of revenge and self-affirmation loomed large in
Snape's mind.  But I don't think it made his actions any less brave. 
The intrepid hero out to avenge a wrong is  a staple of adventure
fiction, and no one doubts that it's brave when Bruce or Ahnold do it
in a movie.  Of course, most such stories go to some effort to make us
root for the avenging hero.  He's painted as noble and sympathetic;
the wrong done to him is real and terrible; the villains he's after
are truly evil.  In PoA, the story goes to great lengths to achieve
the opposite effect.  Snape is nasty and unlikeable; Sirius is a good
guy who's been unjustly punished; Remus is an innocent victim of
prejudice.  We've just been given Sirius' side of the story in minute,
heart-rending detail.  All the cards are stacked to make us root for
our heroes against Snape -- and I did; it's not like I wanted Snape to
succeed in handing Sirius over to the Dementors or getting Lupin
fired.  But that doesn't change my view that, given Snape's sincere
assessment of the situation, his action were brave.


>I don't think that Snape has 
> never acted bravely, I just don't think that was the case in this 
> particular instance.  I also don't think that he needed to fear
Lupin 
> at that point, because he knew that the moon had not 
> been "revealed".  

Even if Snape didn't need to fear Lupin the wolf (and that would've
depended on how long it took Snape to track him down), he still
would've needed (in his view) to fear Lupin the unscrupulous and
powerful wizard in Cahoots with that evil maniac Sirius Black.  

I
>      Actually, now that I think about it.  Did Snape have the potion 
> with him, or did he leave it in Lupin's office? 

I think he must've left it in the office.  There was no mention of him
having it in the Shack, and I suspect that shlepping a full goblet
from Lupin's office all the way to the Shrieking Shack would've been
impractical, unless the goblet had a really well-fitted lid.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From alexpie at aol.com  Wed Feb 13 18:27:39 2002
From: alexpie at aol.com (alexpie at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:27:39 EST
Subject: In defense of JKR's editor
Message-ID: <199.2309fd9.299c0a1b@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35155

Pen Robinson wrote:
>Listening to a book (the Stephen Fry versions, in case it matters to
>anyone) forces me to experience the story one word at a time.  I have
>developed an increased respect for JKR's plotting, characterisation and
>misdirecting abilities, but I have developed something like hatred for...

>It seems to me that someone in the editing department could be a little
>more observant.

As I sit here, editing an absolutely ghastly book, I must address these 
comments.  If I had been editing JKR, I would have surgically removed any 
number of Dumbledore's twinkles, without anesthetic.  And, you know what?  
JKR would most likely have put them right back in.  No matter how brilliant, 
how tactful, how talented, the poor, oppressed copy editor is, the 
unappreciative, monomaniacal, lunatic author ALWAYS has the final say.   Not 
that I'm implying that JKR is any of these things.

Someone also mentioned (can't find it at the moment) that if JKR is nearly 
finished now, a book could be expected in April.  Nohow, no way.  There is 
the copy edit, JKR's review of same, proofreading, slugging, and on and on.  
Even on a crash schedule (which probably wouldn't be attempted for a book of 
this magnitude) we're talking summer at the earliest!
Ba, who now must go back to making changes that she knows will be changed




From cindysphynx at home.com  Wed Feb 13 18:33:04 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:33:04 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Florence,_Bertha_and_C.U.P.I.D.=92S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R._(WAS_C.U.P.I.D.=92S.B.L.U.D.G?=
In-Reply-To: <a4e5ng+mqmk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4ebh0+tk4m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35156

Charis Julia wrote (about George and LOLLIPOPS):

>But errmm
 that's 
> also what I have against George. Where's all the glorious, 
traumatic 
> drama? No,no George won't do.

 AND 

>             Then there's L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. No lack of drama there! 
> In fact it's oozing out of every porthole! But, ahh
 Well
TEWW EWW 
to 
> be TREWW!!! 

What?  No Mercy, Mercy II or Prince?  They can't even get a nod, a 
wave, a cavalier dismissal?  Ouch!

Charis Julia again (about Tew Eww to be Trew):

>And I don't need Lily museums in Snape's dungeons to 
> think that (urg,urg, who came up with that gruesome picture that's 
> been tormenting me ever since I read it by popping up in my mind at 
> unexpected intervals?) 

<raises hand>  It was I, Captain, who has forever planted the image 
of "Poor Pitiful Snape Fondling Pictures Of Lily While Shivering 
Alone In The Dungeon" in your mind.  Sorry.  It was an ugly job, but 
someone had to do it. :-)

Charis Julia again (explaining the new theory):

>No, I think that all in all I shall stick to my initial 
> explanation of events, a little theory of my own that I have been 
> nursing for  almost two years now: Severus fell in love with, not 
> James's, but Sirius's girl!

I would like to serve as tugboat and see if I can help push this 
Sirius & Snape SHIP theory out into the open water.  ::looks around 
on deck for canon, finds mostly speculation::  This version veers a 
bit from Charis Julia's original, but here it is anyway.

I've always wondered what was going on in Dumbledore's Pensieve.  A 
sixteen-year old Bertha Jorkins appears and delivers one line:  "He 
put a hex on me, Professor Dumbledore, and I was only teasing him, 
sir, I only said I'd seen him kissing Florence behind the greenhouses 
last Thursday. . . ."  Dumbledore replies, "But why, Bertha, . . . 
why did you have to follow him in the first place?"

We know for certain that Sirius (and therefore Snape) was in school 
with Bertha.  So . . . Florence must have been Snape's girlfriend, 
Sirius was kissing her and generally putting the moves on her, and 
Sirius cursed Bertha when he thought she was going to tell Snape.  
That makes some sense -- what woman dating Snape would say no to a 
little romp with Sirius?  :-)  Sirius put some sort of curse on 
Bertha (botched memory charm?), but Bertha later told Snape 
everything she had seen.  

This caused Snape to hate Sirius and the Marauders even more.  They 
have everything, don't they?  Popularity, academic success, athletic 
ability, women, werewolf adventures, good looks, clean hair.  But 
that's not enough.  Noooo, Sirius has to fool around with Snape's 
girlfriend, not because Sirius loves her, but just because Sirius 
can.  Snape won't take Florence back because of her betrayal, but he 
loves her, so he prefers to blame Sirius rather than Florence.

The Prank probably came after the Kissing incident.  Bertha was "a 
few years ahead" of the Marauders at Hogwarts.  The Marauders didn't 
learn how to become Animagi until their fifth year, IIRC.  So the 
Kissing happens, then the Prank comes later.  And the Prank was the 
Last Straw for Snape. ::shades of Prince:: 

Note that the theory does not require a belief that Sirius actually 
put a memory charm on Bertha, although he may have tried to.  This is 
consistent with Sirius' descriptions of Bertha of dumb at Hogwarts 
but not forgetful.  "Maybe she's changed since I knew her, but the 
Bertha I knew wasn't forgetfull at all -- quite the reverse.  She was 
a bit dim, but she had an excellent memory for gossip.  It used to 
get her into a lot of trouble; she never knew when to keep her mouth 
shut."  In Sirius' fireside chat with Harry, he says:  "Listen, I 
knew Bertha Jorkins . . . She was at Hogwarts when I was, a few years 
above your dad and me.  And she was an idiot.  Very nosy, but no 
brains, none at all.  It's not a good combination."

As for Florence, I imagine that Snape reduced her to a smouldering 
heap of ash, which he keeps in an urn on his bedside table, right 
next to Lily's yearbook photo.  :-)

Cindy (who can't imagine Snape as the sort to forgive Florence and 
take her back into his dungeon)




From andrew_macian at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 13 18:41:04 2002
From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:41:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] In defense of JKR's editor
In-Reply-To: <199.2309fd9.299c0a1b@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20020213184104.112.qmail@web9506.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35157

Greetings from Andrew!

Just a short comment....

--- alexpie at aol.com wrote:
{snip}

> 
> As I sit here, editing an absolutely ghastly book, I
> must address these 
> comments.  If I had been editing JKR, I would have
> surgically removed any 
> number of Dumbledore's twinkles, without anesthetic.
>  And, you know what?  
> JKR would most likely have put them right back in. 
> No matter how brilliant, 
> how tactful, how talented, the poor, oppressed copy
> editor is, the 
> unappreciative, monomaniacal, lunatic author ALWAYS
> has the final say.   Not 
> that I'm implying that JKR is any of these things.
{snip}

May I offer a 'thank you' to you (categorically)
nonetheless?  Having had a couple of editors in my day
that were gems, and more than few who couldn't resist
the urge to edit my *style* and thus need to be damned
to whatever hell they fear the most, I still
appreciate the work that most editors do, and that
usually goes unappreciated by pros and fen alike.

So...who knows?  When the author is re-redlining the
galleys, he/she might pause as I have and say, 'You
know...she's right!  I don't know why I didn't catch
that.'

Cheers,

Drieux

=====
ICQ # 76184391

'Each game of chess means there's one less
      Variation left to be played;
 Each day got through means one or two less
      Mistakes remain to be made.'
      --'Chess' by Sir Tim Rice

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com



From siskiou at earthlink.net  Wed Feb 13 18:40:22 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:40:22 -0800
Subject: RHR and friendship, wasRe: [HPforGrownups] Re: RE:SHIP: Problems with the concept of G/H
In-Reply-To: <a4c031+4nkb@eGroups.com>
References: <a4c031+4nkb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1366016512.20020213104022@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35158



Hi,

Tuesday, February 12, 2002, 1:05:37 PM, heiditandy wrote:

> Ron seems to be the first peer who ever *talked to him* like another 
> human being, and he glommed onto that without ever really thinking 
> about it - is that necessarily bad? No, and it's a natural way to 
> make friends when you're 11 years old.)

Right.

I wonder if Harry would have made friends with whoever was
sitting with him on the train ride to Hogwarts, assuming
they had been reasonably friendly.

Why wasn't anyone else joining them, anyhow?
And why didn't Ron sit with his Fred and George, though they
probably didn't want their younger brother with them.


It seems, Harry's and Ron's friendship is pretty exclusive
(besides Hermione, of course).

They never seem to hang out much with other boys, except the
time in GoF, where Ron sits with other kids and mentions
being with his brothers Fred and George.

Harry seems mostly well liked, except when something happens
that puts him in a bad light.

He gets on well enough with other kids, but doesn't seem to
initiate much contact or go past friendly exchanges.

Is he just happy with the relationships he has now?

I don't really get much of a feeling about how the rest of
the kids view Ron (apart from being ridiculed by Draco and
his friends).

Same with Hermione. She seems to be friendly with Ginny, but
what about the other girls?

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




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Feb 13 18:53:26 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:53:26 -0000
Subject: RHR and friendship, wasRe: [HPforGrownups] Re: RE:SHIP: Problems with the concept of G/H
In-Reply-To: <1366016512.20020213104022@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <a4ecn6+q3nl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35159

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne <siskiou at e...> wrote:

> I don't really get much of a feeling about how the rest of
> the kids view Ron (apart from being ridiculed by Draco and
> his friends).

Hmmmmm..... Lavender and Parvati don't seem to like him that much, 
especially as he goes after their favourite teacher Trelawney. On the 
other hand, they are kind of a flirtish in that direction, perhaps. 
Remember, "Beware of the red-headed man." The reaction almost seemed 
as if there was something of a crush.

Yet, a group of third year girls is described as horrified to see Ron 
mishandling his owl, and if his behaviour towards Padma at the Ball, 
is any indication of how he treats the opposite sex, I don't see him 
having many friends there.

And, with the boys. No-one except Fred and George, as far as we know. 
He's very dismissive about Neville, too. 

> Same with Hermione. She seems to be friendly with Ginny, but
> what about the other girls?

Parvati and Lavender don't seem close to her. She could perhaps have 
friends elsewhere, but it doesn't show. 

Eileen




From ancarett at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 13 19:01:50 2002
From: ancarett at hotmail.com (ancarett)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:01:50 -0000
Subject: Wizard society: Cultural fossilisation?
In-Reply-To: <001201c1b476$77309de0$371cddcb@price>
Message-ID: <a4ed6v+ceom@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35160

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> wrote:
> 
> OK, all you historians out there... what was considered an 
appropriate age for marriage in late 17th century middle class 
Britain (assuming that Wizards were middle class)?  BTW, please 
forgive any dubious comments and outright mistakes in this post... 
I'm very weak on history, as I've mentioned before!

Average age of marriage in England in the seventeenth to early 
eighteenth century was early twenties for women/mid to late twenties 
for men of the artisanal class -- mostly due to the difficulty of 
raising capital and achieving opportunity to set up a separate 
household. Strong tradition of parental involvement in choosing 
partners and making marital agreements. At the same time, customary 
church law made it easy to elope (in Scotland, marriages were still 
legally recognized by the unchallenge statement in present tense by 
one of the couple in the presence of the other). For more reading on 
this subject, consult Lawrence Stone's Family, Sex and Marriage in 
England, 1500-1800 or David Cressy's Birth, Marriage and Death: 
Ritual, Religion and the Life-Cycle in Tudor and Stuart England.

> 
> I've certainly read that the concept of "adolescence" is an 
invention of the 20th century, which has been reinforced by 
compulsory education until the mid to late teens and legal 
definitions of adulthood in the mid teens to early twenties.  Once 
upon a time, I'm pretty sure "adulthood", sexual maturity and the 
beginning of one's working life were more or less synonymous (even my 
grandmother, born in 1917, left school to start work at 13).  
Interestingly, Hogwarts seems to have an older, vocational kind of 
system mixed with a 20th century "education for all" philosophy.  

This is an interesting idea: I'd say that Hogwarts much more 
resembles the boarding schools favoured by nineteenth century British 
middle classes and elites than the vocational/home-based educational 
experiences common in pre-industrial artisanal households (i.e. where 
young men were apprenticed as goldsmiths, tanners, etc.). One other 
possible educational model would be the schools sponsored by the 
Quakers and other religious minorities during the eighteenth century, 
often cited as the breeding ground of many great early industrial 
technologists. Hogwarts might take this model in quite a different 
direction, though!

Ancarett -- http://ancarett.com





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Feb 13 19:10:50 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:10:50 -0000
Subject: RHR and friendship, wasRe: [HPforGrownups] Re: RE:SHIP: Problems with the concept of G/H
In-Reply-To: <1366016512.20020213104022@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <a4ednq+ii2s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35161

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne <siskiou at e...> wrote:
 brothers Fred and George.
> 
> Harry seems mostly well liked, except when something happens
> that puts him in a bad light.
> 
> He gets on well enough with other kids, but doesn't seem to
> initiate much contact or go past friendly exchanges.
> 
> Is he just happy with the relationships he has now?

I suspect that after having no friends at all for the first eleven
years of his life, suddenly having *two* seems like an awful lot. 
Almost greedy to go looking for more, really.  Plus, I'd say Harry
considers Hagrid to be a friend -- even after Hagrid gets the teaching
job, Harry still seems to see him as a pall who made good rather than
a teacher; he certainly doesn't see him as an authority figure.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com  Wed Feb 13 18:56:41 2002
From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:56:41 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pronunciation of Fortescue
References: <a4chmm+7qb4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00ed01c1b4c1$525b7da0$619bbc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 35162

According to Stephen Fry - illustrious reader of my HP canon - its a three syllable word.  Him being British public school probably got it right.

Do invest in Fry - no-one does it better!

Felicia


  I recently wrote a filk in which I assumed that the surname of 
  Florean Fortescue (he of the ice cream parlor in PoA, Chap. 4) was a 
  three-syllable word (For-tes-cue). It now occurs to me that perhaps 
  it is a two-syllable word (For-tesk). Could someone enlighten me?

    - CMC (who needs to invest in a set of Dale or Fry)



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





From siskiou at earthlink.net  Wed Feb 13 19:42:19 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:42:19 -0800
Subject: Ron stuff, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron Going To The Dark Side
In-Reply-To: <a4bq94+qhnd@eGroups.com>
References: <a4bq94+qhnd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <10569734024.20020213114219@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35163



Hi,

Tuesday, February 12, 2002, 11:26:28 AM, gideoner4 wrote:

> What I'm thinking is that 
> Voldemort could brainwash Ron into believing that Harry gets all tye 
> shots and that is unfair for Ron. I don't think that Ron will turn 
> evil willingly. I think that he's a too loyal a friend. But if 
> Voldemort lured Ron into believing that Ron is being shortchanged, 
> Ron could be tempted. I dunno, this is just my two cents on the 
> matter. :D

> Ron has a fiery temper, and prone to oubursts, and excitable. I'm 
> nervous about him. The fact that he's Harry's best friend make shim 
> perfect prey for Voldemort. All Voldemort has to do is rub in Ron's 
> feeling inferiority to Harry and everything could go chaotic.

Do you assume that Ron would know it was Voldemort, if this
happened?

Because I can't see Ron willingly go along with anything
coming from LV, unless he was under a curse.

I don't think Ron wants money or fame any way he can get it.
To me it seems he wants it through something he does
himself, something "good".

He doesn't just want money or fame handed to him, he wants to earn
it, imo.
He doesn't want Harry or anyone else to just hand him a bag
of galleons.

In GoF, for example, he would have loved to enter the
contest and win the prize, but it would have been hard work
to get there.

And while Ron was really angry with Harry, he never did
anything to Harry besides not talking to him, withdrawing
his friendship (which was bad enough).

But he never wore one of those "Harry Stinks" buttons, or
side with Harry's enemies, or follow him around to say nasty
things.

I didn't like Ron's behavior at all in this book (though I
could understand it) and hope he
learned his lesson.
I really wouldn't enjoy this repeated over and over again.

And the sniping between Hermione and Ron started to
seriously get on my nerves.
If it wasn't Ron starting something, it was Hermione making
a nasty remark about something Ron said or did.

I hope they both get over whatever it is that's making them
behave like that.

Does it seem to anyone else that Ron is being dumbed down in
GoF?
He is written as very clueless, blurting out a lot of stuff
that doesn't make much sense.
It didn't strike me this way in the first 3 books.

Also, in a post I can't find anymore someone said Ron was
being weak, and one thing supporting this was the fact that
he couldn't resist the Imperius curse.

But as far as I read it, Harry was the only one who had any
success in resisting this curse.
All the other students couldn't.
Ron had more difficulties than Harry with this, but then so
did everyone else in the class.

Obviously, I like Ron <g>, though he has his bad moments,
but I don't see him as generally weak.
To me he seems to have a solid, good core, and I don't see
him throwing it all away.

If JKR decides to have him do something seriously harmful to
Harry or others, it would truly ruin the story for me.

<Sigh> I'm going to have to have someone pre-read the next book for
me <g>.

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




From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com  Wed Feb 13 19:00:34 2002
From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:00:34 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book 5 - I heard a rumour
References: <a4cjli+8hfq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00ee01c1b4c1$539a6640$619bbc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 35164

As I have now had posts accepted, been rapped across the knuckles by our illustrious and hard-working Moderators for getting it wrong ;-( and got a List Elf to help me out.) - I feel I can introduce myself.  

 

My name is Felicia M Dawson-Rickmann and I live in the U.K. I work for accountants, I design & create ride a small-ish motorbike - 250c.c. (Sirius I suspect rode a larger one - possibly a wizard version of the British Triumph).  I am marginally older than Severus Snape, according to JKR.  

 

I am fascinated by the many discussions on Snape, Sirius and Lupin, less so by Hermione - who can look after herself, Ron - who will not IMO go over to the dark side, and Ginny - who definitely will come into her own in time (and leave behind the gauche, giggly little girl she was).  I had also better stand up and be counted on two well established theories - L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. and Ambush.  With the utmost respect to the proposers and absorbing as the theories are - No Way IMO.   Snape may have lost someone (close family/friend/wife/loverwhowasnotLilly?) at some stage but, as this is a children's book, such a dramatic turn of events as proposed by L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. would have to be very very carefully handled.   

 

My admiration for JKR, Dumbledore, Sirius, Lupin and Snape is boundless - their motives, motivation, histories etc., and I look greatly enjoy reading the many theories and opinions HPFGU offers on their behalf.  Thank you everyone.

Also...

What is the latest information on the availability of book 5????

I heard a rumour that Warner (bless their little hearts) wanted to hold off publication until approx. December when the next film is rumoured to be coming out.  I also heard that JKR told them where to get off the knight bus - if you follow my drift - and that the book would be coming out in time for the summer holidays (U.K. timing that is.....). Not confirmed but I thought you would like to hear something!!

Felicia




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 13 20:26:04 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:26:04 -0000
Subject: LV delusions of superiority Was (Re: Crouch Sr. under imperius)
In-Reply-To: <a4e8mi+svra@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4ei4s+eoi1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35165

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
> 
> The most unbelievable break in LV's plan (which convinces me of his 
> psychosis) is that Tom Riddle, a half-blood muggleborne, is now 
> driven to kill all muggles! Picture if Hitler's mother was secretly 
> Jewish.

Actually, his father was probably 1/2 Jewish!  Daddy was the product 
of an affair between a maid and her Jewish employer.  But Adolf 
didn't like Daddy very much, so...

(Yes, I know this veers OT, but had to rise to the bait!) 

---
Now, to veer back on target.  We were dicussing the reason for 
bothering to put Crouch Sr. under imperius & send him to Hogwarts 
rather than just get rid of him (either kill or keep him prisoner at 
home). I still think Voldy chose to imperio him so Crouch could 
insist that Harry compete in the Triwizards tournament & then score 
Harry highly in the tasks.  And both of these crucial jobs he does do 
while under the imperius curse.

Yes, Voldy is more than capable of overestimating himself (shades of 
every Batman villian!) but Voldy DID correctly recognize that Crouch 
was starting to fight the imperius curse and made him stop going into 
work.  "I need a little R&R from overwork, Weatherby."  And then 
little Wormtail nearly spoiled Voldy's beautiful scheme by letting 
Barty slip away.  Tsk, tsk.  But he single-handedly made up for his 
mistake.  (Again, I had to rise to the bait.)




From roughhouse at charter.net  Wed Feb 13 22:47:39 2002
From: roughhouse at charter.net (Roughhouse)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:47:39 -0800
Subject: Book on Tape...
References: <a4chmm+7qb4@eGroups.com> <00ed01c1b4c1$525b7da0$619bbc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>
Message-ID: <000901c1b4e0$70a637e0$5024a842@cc594451a>

No: HPFGUIDX 35166

Felicia wrote:

>>  Do invest in Fry - no-one does it better!


I have the Jim Dale version.  Is the Fry version European?  I can't imagine anyone reading it as well as Dale.  He has set the speach patterns, and Vioces in my head which I use when I read the books to my daughter.  Yet I find myself curious to hear a little of Frys reading now.

-sean
  



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





From sandirs at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 13 20:46:53 2002
From: sandirs at hotmail.com (Sandi Steinberg)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:46:53 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] anti-SHIP: Ginny griping
Message-ID: <F314acoKRWR1hdVYunL0001d1fd@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35167

Laura wrote:

>She's SO...pre-teen-girly-esque
>

Jake wrote:

>Harry doesn't study with Ginny. He doesn't attend classes with her. He does 
> >with Hermione, and her intellect shines through the pages. To be honest, 
>he >rarely sees Ginny in canon. Yes, when she was 11 she squeaked a 
>bit...she did a bit of fairly girly crushing...she wrote horrible 
>'poetry'...but she >was *11*. By the end of book 4, she's 13, and while she 
>was still obviously interested in Harry, and disappointed that she'd missed 
>her chance to attend >the Yule Ball, she wasn't a giggling idiot.
>
>The whole point is that Ginny in Cof S II IS a pre-teen girl, and her 
>mixture of shyness, mad crushes, and over the top behavior regarding the 
>object of her crush, Harry, is very typical.  Girls that age don't know 
>what to do with their emotions and the fact that Harry isn't yet "into" 
>girls doesn't help her.

It's Hermione, the intensely academic bookworm who is atypical of girls of 
this age.  Ginny is much more feminine and is will ing to wear her heart on 
her sleeve and take the risk of rejection or ridicule; Hermione only does 
that when she tries to participate in Snape's class, not with boys.  
Socially, she's a bit of a late bloomer, I think.

I think Ginny will fill a certain "love" need in Harry's life that he will 
come to consciously realize later.  H will always be a good buddy and 
comrade in arms, tho' rating a bit below Ron in the latter category.

Sandi Steinberg
Arlington, VA

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





From dumbledore94 at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 13 19:49:12 2002
From: dumbledore94 at hotmail.com (andrea mcpherson talia chambers)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:49:12 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Percy, death(Re:WAS SHIP R/H and P/P
Message-ID: <F30QNpOeQM6D13MC6qb00005d97@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35168





< snip excellent reasons for a Percy/Penelope marriage/further 
realationship.>

Eileen wrote:

>Sad to say, though, I think Percy will die, and, therefore, JKR won't
>have the stomach to develop the relationship with Penny.


I completely agree that Percy will die.

Reason 1) No one takes him seriously, or even seems to care for him aside 
from Molly.But *maybe* ;) deep down they do and will find that out for 
themselves after he suffers a horrific death.*grimace*

Reason 2) He worships Crouch Sr. Now that Crouch Sr.( and Jr. for that 
matter) is/are dead, who else is left for poor old Weatherby? He could 
easily go for cowardly (a lot of Dark Characters are cowards. JKR implies 
cowardice as "NO,NO!") Fudge (gasp! or perhaps He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named?)

Reason 3) Percy will [not may] have to make a dire choice. I *know* it, it 
just feels *right*.In the process of that choice one, oh, say *side* will 
think it fit to kill Percy.


So...

Can't you just picture all the Weasley children balling their eyes out,not 
to mention overwhelming guilt for being so mean to the poor guy... good 
lesson for Gred and Forge especially.

Don't get me wrong... I love Percy... just in a "let's kill 'em and make the 
plot more interesting" sorta way.=)

*Smiles a twisted smile and bites her nails nervously, afraid someone will 
assume she's on the dark side and proclaims,"Okay, so I'm not on the 
White(good) side,but that doesn't make me on the Black(evil) side... I'm... 
er..Grey!

Andrea, the lurker. ( Who hopes this horrid fever will stop soon, so she 
won't have to go through 2 boxes of Kleenex each day.)

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





From sandirs at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 13 20:11:34 2002
From: sandirs at hotmail.com (Sandi Steinberg)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:11:34 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's Imminent Crisis
Message-ID: <F277cJZVBfS34y4Qp0X000143ff@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35169

AV noted that Hermione is a "male-identified" girl.

Sometimes, it's a matter of our earliest friends/relatives also.  If 
Hermione (and like AV, I am positive H is an only child, and I'm one myself) 
had only boys as early companions, she is apt to be more comfortable with 
male companions. Most of my pals at ages 4-5 were boys due to a dearth of 
girls on the block!  Simple logistics!

I also agree that H is doing fine as she is.

As to

"Hermione, canonically speaking, has anything in common with Cho or Ginny or 
any other female character we've seen yet. Except for some of the female 
*professors* that is. This is also a pretty common pattern in gifted 
children, especially girls,"

I agree with the general premise but would add that H is a friend to Ginny 
and they seem to get along well whenever H is a Weasley houseguest; it's 
just that H's female friendship is not germane to the plotline thus far and 
so is underdeveloped.  Certainly, we never hear her put down other girls or 
be mean or airy toward them, a form of behavior very common in adolescent 
girls.  Nor do the Hogwarts girls seem to treat H like an outsider because 
she doesn't "hang with the girls>"  Except for Draco and his claque, the 
Hogwarts kids seem very nice and well adjusted on the whole.

As far as H's identification with female professors, it seems all her 
instructors have recognized the intellectual abilities that this student 
possesses.  Even non-faculty are impressed by her.  In 'Azbakan, Sirius 
calls her the smartest witch of her age he's ever encountered.

I really give H a lot of credit; she does her research and frequently, as in 
GoF, Harry's as well.

Sandi Steinberg
Arlington, VA




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Wed Feb 13 21:21:29 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:21:29 -0800
Subject: Harry's qualities, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: RE:SHIP: Problems with the concept of G/H
In-Reply-To: <a4e2v7+i0rm@eGroups.com>
References: <a4e2v7+i0rm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <875684317.20020213132129@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35170



Hi,

Wednesday, February 13, 2002, 8:07:03 AM, naamagatus wrote:

> Harry has 
> substance - he is good, kind, brave, smart and sensitive.

I don't really care who Harry gets together with (shocking,
isn't it <g>), but I wanted to look at his qualities a little closer.

I agree that he is good (mostly, like everyone he has his
little moments) and normally kind and brave and smart.

The one thing I'm not sure about is how sensitive he is to
other's problems.
This probably stems from his growing up with the Dursley's
and his age,
but many times Harry seems a bit oblivious to what might be
going on in other people's lives (Ron, Neville for example).

He is surprised that he never wondered why Neville is living
with his grandmother and seems very surprised that Ron could
be jealous of *him* (understandable, looking at the way
Harry sees himself), and can't seem to understand why Ron is
upset when he finds out about the vanishing gold.

Though this may all change when he gets a bit older.
There probably aren't many kids who look past their own
selves at this age.

>  Why is it
> so ewwwy that Ginny should grow to truly love him *as she matures*? 
> And if they remain compatible as they both grow and change, why 
> shouldn't they remain in love to the point when they wish to marry 
> each other? 
> I think Harry would make a wonderful mate (see qualities above).

He might, but he might also be distant.
Or he may think he should not start a family because of his
dangerous life, unless the story ends with all evil having
been defeated for all times, and everyone living happily
ever after (which would surprise me).

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




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Feb 13 22:00:56 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:00:56 -0000
Subject: Percy, death(Re:WAS SHIP R/H and P/P
In-Reply-To: <F30QNpOeQM6D13MC6qb00005d97@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a4enmo+s5b6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35171

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "andrea mcpherson talia chambers" 
> I completely agree that Percy will die.

Woohoo! I mean..... yes. Sad. Really sad. I'll be crying, but I'm 
thrilled you agree with me. 

> Reason 1) No one takes him seriously, or even seems to care for him 

aside 
> from Molly.But *maybe* ;) deep down they do and will find that out 

for 
> themselves after he suffers a horrific death.*grimace*

The readers are often in the same place as the characters. I was 
flipping through one of those dreadful fan books they've published, 
which recorded tons of requests from fans for future books, and Percy 
dying, or disappearing, was asked for by quite a few kids, b/c he's 
too uptight and boring. Just wait till he dies and they'll be sorry. 

Meanwhile, I think it's funny that Ron says Percy doesn't care for 
his family enough, when all the evidence is the other way around. 
Percy's the only person who has really demonstrated his affection for 
Ron (though I'm sure the others have it), whereas Ron and the others 
are very cool towards Percy. 

> Reason 2) He worships Crouch Sr. Now that Crouch Sr.( and Jr. for 

that 
> matter) is/are dead, who else is left for poor old Weatherby? He 

could 
> easily go for cowardly (a lot of Dark Characters are cowards. JKR 

implies 
> cowardice as "NO,NO!") Fudge (gasp! or perhaps 

He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named?)
> 

I can't see valiant Percy purposely following You-Know-Who. He 
doesn't fit the profile, imho. But I can see him getting taken in by 
all those DEs working at the ministry. 

Reasons why Percy is Valiant (for those who are already snickering)

1. Became Prefect in fifth form, telling people much older what to 
do, and enforcing it. You need guts for that. 
2. Raced off to deal with the DEs in GOF, and came back bleeding. 
3. Patrolled the dangerous corridors in Chamber of Secrets.

> Reason 3) Percy will [not may] have to make a dire choice. I *know* 

it, it 
> just feels *right*.In the process of that choice one, oh, say 
*side* 

will 
> think it fit to kill Percy.

Yes! Wouldn't it be horrendous if he chose well, and that resulted in 
him being killed by the good guys in some way?

> Don't get me wrong... I love Percy... just in a "let's kill 'em and 

make the 
> plot more interesting" sorta way.=)

My love for fictional characters often runs that way. Death is such a 
simple ingredient to add to the mix and it improves it so much. 

Eileen, Officially bloodthirsty




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Feb 13 22:10:03 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:10:03 -0000
Subject: Book V: A proposal!
Message-ID: <a4eo7r+kfrc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35172

Ahemmm...

Sonorus!

We have little idea when OOTP will come out, but it WILL come out. At 
least, I very much hope so.

On that day, wouldn't it be nice to have a list of predictions and 
theories already made, so that we could go down that list and note 
each one's confirmation, dissolution, or continuing status?

Thankyou very much.

Eileen




From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com  Wed Feb 13 21:58:28 2002
From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 21:58:28 -0000
Subject: Something's been bothering me about Sirius
References: <a4chmm+7qb4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000d01c1b4d9$92b01240$1b86bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 35173

I have a query, and as a new member coming in on many conversations about Sirius Black, I can only hit the ground running so fast, so bear with me.  Query :-  Stan Shunpike (bus conductor) tells Harry that Sirius Black was a great supporter of Lord Voldemort.  Canon reads: "Yeah that's right - very close to You Know Who, they say".  PoA Ch. 3  

 

WHY?  

 

At this mention of Sirius Black what little back history there is, Stan relates to Harry - already in a state of panic fleeing from an inflated aunt and the Dursleys, and convinced he is to be banished from the wizarding world.  Later, when we learn more about Sirius, nothing else links him to Voldemort except the Pettigrew's * explosion *.  Does it?  Sirius, we find out later, was the Potter's Secret Keeper, so why build a mysterious, rumour-fuelled unsubstantiated element to his past linking him to Voldemort?   

 

Sirius imprisoned, languishing for a long, long time in Azkaban before breaking out to get justice, (prompted by the Weasley's picture in Egypt) could be seen as a *maligned hero*; for surviving, retaining his humanity, sanity(?) and for refraining from killing Pettigrew (with Remus) - for Harry's sake - in the Shrieking Shack, in complete contrast with Snape who, as anti-hero, also comes with an unrelated back history, but whose fate turned him into Black's, equally puzzling, * enemy *.  Why indulge in this character assassination?  

 

 

Felicia

 

  ----- 


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





From ftah3 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 13 22:14:49 2002
From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:14:49 -0000
Subject: Something's been bothering me about Sirius
In-Reply-To: <000d01c1b4d9$92b01240$1b86bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>
Message-ID: <a4eogq+lfto@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35174

Felicia Rickmann wrote:
> At this mention of Sirius Black what little back history there is, 
Stan relates to Harry - already in a state of panic fleeing from an 
inflated aunt and the Dursleys, and convinced he is to be banished 
from the wizarding world.  Later, when we learn more about Sirius, 
nothing else links him to Voldemort except the Pettigrew's * 
explosion *.  Does it?  Sirius, we find out later, was the Potter's 
Secret Keeper, so why build a mysterious, rumour-fuelled 
unsubstantiated element to his past linking him to Voldemort?   

Because as the Potter's supposed Secret Keeper (turns out he wasn't ~ 
Pettigrew was), he was the only one who could have told Voldemort 
where the Potters were so that Voldemort could then go kill them.  
Hence the assumption that if Sirius was the Secret Keeper and spilled 
the beans to Voldy, he must have at least been Voldy's follower.  

Mahoney




From moongirlk at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 13 22:21:46 2002
From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:21:46 -0000
Subject: Why Suspect Lupin?  (WAS: Snape, Lupin's Mistakes Again)
In-Reply-To: <a4btid+f87d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4eotq+114l0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35175

I tried and I tried to get caught up before commenting on this 
thread, but I'm all in this dark, sexy place Lupin-wise now, and I 
just can't wait.

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> This has got to be the most brilliant character sketch I've seen 
for 
> awhile. <snip>
> Your post made me realize why it is that I love Lupin 

I have to agree with this, although I'd say it explains my feelings 
of something slightly, let's say Edgier than love of Lupin.  
I love him for all the kindness and the enocouraging of Neville and 
being the first person to share Harry's parents with him in a real 
and personal way.  I love the lone wolf thing - the persecuted soul 
who has a hard time trusting because he's never been trusted (my take 
on why he couldn't bring himself to tell Dumbledore about Sirius and 
the tunnels - makes it all the more poignant that the only real 
friendships he ever had were destroyed by lack of trust).  I love his 
sense of humor and his seemingly eternal readiness with chocolate 
(what's not to love!).  

But thanks to Elkins I realize that I *dig* him for the fact that 
he's this only-just-under-control volcano who has the capacity to 
destroy half the people around him (and I'm not talking about 
physically as a werewolf).  It's that insight - if he wanted to, he 
could go straight for the most tender spot and make a grown man cry 
(hmmm... like Peter?), but (unless terribly provoked... like with 
Peter) he chooses not to.  

I was blushing reading Elkins' post and realizing that I'm, well... 
turned on by his capacity for cruelty.  How can this be?  

Snape's got the same capacity, but he acts on it, and not 
appropriately (meaning not only on horrible people like Peter).  
While I have begun to see where some are coming from with him (and 
when occasionally he's managing a degree of restraint can even agree 
with them), he doesn't do it for me in general.  So it never occurred 
to me that I actually liked the underlying currents that allow him to 
do those things, but when they're presented as traits of Lupin's, I 
think they're hot.  I'm beginning to think I'm a sick and twisted 
individual.

I'm going to have to, for the sake of my sanity, cling to the belief 
that it's the control of said volcano-ness that I dig, not the 
volcano itself.  

kimberly
hoping this isn't an indication of some bad-boy fetish in real life, 
but afraid it might explain why things haven't worked out with the 
nice guys she's dated.




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Feb 13 22:40:32 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:40:32 -0000
Subject: Something's been bothering me about Sirius
In-Reply-To: <000d01c1b4d9$92b01240$1b86bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>
Message-ID: <a4eq10+nve0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35176

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Felicia Rickmann" <felicia.rickmann at d...> 
> At this mention of Sirius Black what little back history there is,
Stan relates to Harry - already in a state of panic fleeing from an
inflated aunt and the Dursleys, and convinced he is to be banished
from the wizarding world.  Later, when we learn more about Sirius,
nothing else links him to Voldemort except the Pettigrew's * explosion
*.  Does it?  Sirius, we find out later, was the Potter's Secret
Keeper, so why build a mysterious, rumour-fuelled unsubstantiated
element to his past linking him to Voldemort?   
> 

I suspect that right after the Potters were killed and Sirius got
railroaded into Azkaban, there would've been an insane amount of
rumors and speculation about that awful man Black and why he did it. 
Daily Prophet reporters, robbed of their chance to cover a sensational
trial, would be reduced to going around interviewing anyone they could
get their hands on.  The surviving witnesses would've been recounting,
in increasingly lurid detail, that shudder-worthy scene of Sirius
standing there laughing after the explosion.  Sirius' old schoolmates,
next-door neighbors, cleaning lady and local bartender would've been
doing talk shows on the Wizard Wireless, going on sagely about how
they always knew there was something not right about that boy, going
about with his shaggy hair and his flying motorcycle, a different
woman in his flat every night, anyone could see he was bad news...  Of
course he worked for You-know-who!  Must've been his right-hand man
all along, a shame the Aurors hadn't caught him sooner...  Twelve
years later, the rumors would be all anyone would really remember.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From Chelsea2162 at aol.com  Wed Feb 13 22:57:45 2002
From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:57:45 EST
Subject: Prefects
Message-ID: <15b.8edb175.299c4969@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35177

jklb66 writes:

<Gee, who do we know who has excellent grades, gets along with (most 
<of) the teachers, hates to skip classes, follows the rules (unless 
<absolutely necessary), and has enough inner self confidence to take a 
l<eadership role within her house?  I'm certain that Hermione will not 
<only becomes a prefect, but Head Girl as well.

 I agree with you - it's already been determined that Hermione is 
exceptionally smart, and could quite easily be a prodigy. Some have said that 
a Perfect/Head Boy or Girl is not only chosen on academic abilities, but also 
on bravery, and quick thinking. Hermione embodies all of these qualities, 
proving time and again that she is brilliant not only in school, but in the 
real world. I believe without a doubt that she will become a Perfect, and 
eventually, Head Girl.




From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 13 22:46:30 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:46:30 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Something's been bothering me about Sirius
Message-ID: <F82gFrYILoygXLsxpTl00002a1e@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35178

> Felicia Rickmann wrote:
> > At this mention of Sirius Black what little back history there is,
> >Stan relates to Harry - already in a state of panic fleeing from an
> >inflated aunt and the Dursleys, and convinced he is to be banished
> >from the wizarding world.  Later, when we learn more about Sirius,
> >nothing else links him to Voldemort except the Pettigrew's *
> >explosion *.  Does it?  Sirius, we find out later, was the Potter's
> >Secret Keeper, so why build a mysterious, rumour-fuelled
> >unsubstantiated element to his past linking him to Voldemort?

Mahoney responded:
>Because as the Potter's supposed Secret Keeper (turns out he wasn't ~
>Pettigrew was), he was the only one who could have told Voldemort
>where the Potters were so that Voldemort could then go kill them.
>Hence the assumption that if Sirius was the Secret Keeper and spilled
>the beans to Voldy, he must have at least been Voldy's follower.

I would take the view that Stan Shuntpike has absolutely no way to know just 
how well connected Sirius Black was to LV. He is very likely basing his 
comments on what he's read in the Daily Prophet, where articles were written 
condemning the man for his evil deeds and linking him to the Death Eaters. 
Possibly even speculating on just how important he was to the DE cause. My 
guess is that your average wizard on the street doesn't know a thing about 
Sirius black that they didn't get from the media.

J

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





From Brwneil at aol.com  Wed Feb 13 23:13:10 2002
From: Brwneil at aol.com (Brwneil at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:13:10 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book V: A proposal!
Message-ID: <181.38b8c61.299c4d06@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35179

In a message dated 2/13/2002 6:02:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
lucky_kari at yahoo.ca writes:


> We have little idea when OOTP will come out, but it WILL come out. At 
> least, I very much hope so.
> 

The last I heard was this summer and that makes sense if you follow the money 
trail.  The powers involved in the release wouldn't want the book and movie 
fighting each other for our money.  The video is scheduled to come out in the 
spring, bring the next book out in the summer, followed by the movie for book 
two in the late fall.  Its all about money.

Neil 


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





From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 13 23:49:26 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:49:26 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] LV delusions of superiority Was (Re: Crouch Sr. under
 imperius)
Message-ID: <F1113mnQPoLxNuJITJo00017d76@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35180

>From: "uncmark" <uncmark at yahoo.com> wrote:
>Why all the intricate twists in his plan?

Well...honestly, would you have read "Harry Potter and the Transfiguration 
Textbook"? Probably not. You needed something exciting like the Triwizard 
Tournament going on.

>Wormtail was right. LV could easily use another wizard that wan't as
>protected as Harry.

Yes, but *he wanted Harry*. He killed two birds with one stone in that he is 
now back from body banishment (I can't really bring myself to call it 
death), and now he can touch his greatest enemy without hurting himself.

They easily caught Moody, the master Auror. LV's
>flaw in reasoning is that he believes himself superior to all oyhers
>and simply doesn't consider that a 11 year old girl might resist or
>that Harry might have a chance at beating him.

Exactly. Lord Voldemort is your Evil, Unassailable Dark Lord (as I am so 
fond of saying). He's nasty, he's not nice to anybody, he shoots first and 
asks questions later, he manipulates people as it suits him, and he's 
arrogant.

>One outcome of ChoS that is rarely mentioned is that Harry
>saved the only girl of a powerful family. The Weasley's would all
>fight for Harry without fear!

Yes, go Harry. No doubt in my mind that the Weasleys are indeed an important 
family in the wizarding world.

>Harry antagonizes a powerful dark wizard to free a subhuman elf! Whay
>would any young wizard waste his time on that? Harry now has Dobby as
>a unquestioning ally. Elves at Hoqwart's would never interfere in
>Human issues, except for Dobby (who may inspire the others).

I don't know that I'd say antagonizes...tricks, yes. Harry gives his sock to 
Lucius, Lucius, in a moment of not thinking (one of several, I am sure), 
hands sock over to his House Elf in confusion and befuddlement. Lucius is of 
course very angry and Dobby reciprocates his thanks to Harry by blasting 
Lucius down a flight of stairs.

Elves in this world seem to be very powerful magically, and their magic 
looks to follow a different set of rules than human magic does, and would 
probably be a key ally into winning the war. They have, however been 
opressed probably for centuries and generations.

>In ChofS Tom Riddle soesn't even consider the appearence of a Phoenix
>a Sorting Hat an issue. In GofF, he never looks into the significance
>that both Harry and him have phoenix wands.

Once again, Ye Olde Evil Lord Arrogance kicking in with the sorting hat. He 
forgets that phoenix tears heal wounds. I don't think that he knew he and 
Harry had Phoenix core wands, let alone brother wands. Another intersting 
thing about the wood of the wands is the type. Yew (Voldemort's wand) is a 
symbol for death, and is usually found in cemetaries, and Holly (Harry's 
wand) is a symbol of eternal life (because of the berries, this is also why 
its a common decoration at Christmas time). :D

>The most unbelievable break in LV's plan (which convinces me of his
>psychosis) is that Tom Riddle, a half-blood muggleborne, is now
>driven to kill all muggles! Picture if Hitler's mother was secretly
>Jewish.

As has been said in an earlier post, and unless I am wrong which is quite 
likely as I am not a biographer, Hitler had some form of Jewish heritage.

I think the basic theory behind Tom's reasoning is his bitterness towards 
his father. "My dad was a bad muggle, he abandoned my mother when he found 
out she was a witch, down with muggles!" That sort of thing.

>I'm wondering how significant Dumbledore's look was when he heard
>that LV had used Harry's blood. Is LV now vulnerable?

I dont' buy the Evil!Dumbledore theory at all. Just to say that.

>Does Fawkes and the Phoenix Wands have special significance as the
>next book is 'Order of the Phoenix?

*strokes chin* Could be...

Liz (who thinks Evil!Dumbledore is like Competent!Fudge)

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




From porphyria at mindspring.com  Wed Feb 13 23:52:09 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:52:09 -0500
Subject: Taking Lupin his potion (WAS: What is brave?)
Message-ID: <RELAY1EZK2OU4CfHPYD00005f38@relay1.softcomca.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35181

Some of you were wondering whether Snape brought the werewolf-pacifying potion with him to the Shrieking Shack when he went after Lupin, and if not, why not.

Marina suggested:
"I think he must've left it in the office.  There was no mention of him having it in the Shack, and I suspect that shlepping a full goblet from Lupin's office all the way to the Shrieking Shack would've been impractical, unless the goblet had a really well-fitted lid."

Yeah, that was my thought for a while, but now I've come up with a better theory (always being eager to defend Snape's competency). This is from the original scene in PoA where Harry is visiting Lupin in his office and Snape shows up with the potion:

    "Ah, Severus," said Lupin, smiling. "Thanks very much. Could you leave it here on the desk for me?"

    Snape set down the smoking goblet, his eyes wandering between Harry and Lupin.

    "I was just showing Harry my grindylow," said Lupin pleasantly, pointing at the tank.

    "Fascinating," said Snape, without looking at it. "You should drink that directly, Lupin."

    "Yes, Yes, I will," said Lupin.

My theory is that it has to be drunk right away, as Snape suggests, while it is still smoking, otherwise the effectiveness will be lost. After all, it's a fussy, unstable potion; even sugar will neutralize its effectiveness. So while it might keep long enough for Snape to walk it to Lupin's office, maybe it won't stay fresh while he hikes all the way to the Shack.   

~~Porphyria

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .




From k_wayment at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 14 00:05:59 2002
From: k_wayment at hotmail.com (hpfan04)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 00:05:59 -0000
Subject: Potter's deathday
Message-ID: <a4ev17+qdb1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35182


  I'm still trying to figure out where everything is and how to get 
there on the HPfGU website, and I know the rules say to check out the 
FAQ, but HOW do I get there? It's frustrating.
  Anyway, I had a question, as it is obvious, about when James and 
Lily Potter's death day was. I seem to remember something about it 
being October the thrity-first, but I can't seem to find where it 
said that. Do we really not know and I've created something in my 
imagination?
  Can someone point me in the right direction?
  ~Kyli  who feels very foolish right now, can't seem to remeber 
anything, and asks really dumb questions because everybody else 
thought of all the intellectual questions and before she joined the 
group! (Okay, I'm done now ;))




From saitaina at wizzards.net  Thu Feb 14 00:13:42 2002
From: saitaina at wizzards.net (Saitaina)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:13:42 -0800
Subject: Voldemort in need of a good memory aid?
References: <a4ev17+qdb1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00db01c1b4ec$782114c0$a54e28d1@oemcomputer>

No: HPFGUIDX 35183

Probably mentioned but I must bring it up after re-reading CoS....Voldemort
has a horrible memory for important things.  He forgot the old magic's that
kept Harry alive and his younger self forgot the healing powers of the
Phoenix.  Makes me wonder what else he could have, will have forgotten.
Could this be another plot point we will see again?  Could Voldemort one day
forget how to pronounce Avada Kadavra?

Saitaina
*****
Also Doing: Cleaning cans out/role-playing
Last Movie Seen: Harry Potter and the Sorcer's Stone (3rd time)
Last TV Show Seen: "Cops"
Current Book-"The Lunatic Cafe"




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Feb 14 00:24:33 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 00:24:33 -0000
Subject: Taking Lupin his potion (WAS: What is brave?)
In-Reply-To: <RELAY1EZK2OU4CfHPYD00005f38@relay1.softcomca.com>
Message-ID: <a4f041+7cfa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35184

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "porphyria at m..." <porphyria at m...> 
wrote:
> Some of you were wondering whether Snape brought the 
werewolf-pacifying potion with him to the Shrieking Shack when 
he went after Lupin, and if not, why not.
> 
> Marina suggested:
> "I think he must've left it in the office.  There was no mention of 
him having it in the Shack, and I suspect that shlepping a full 
goblet from Lupin's office all the way to the Shrieking Shack 
would've been impractical, unless the goblet had a really 
well-fitted lid."
> 
> Yeah, that was my thought for a while, but now I've come up 
with a better theory <snip quote from PoA>
> My theory is that it has to be drunk right away, as Snape 
suggests, while it is still smoking, otherwise the effectiveness 
will be lost. After all, it's a fussy, unstable potion; even sugar will 
neutralize its effectiveness. So while it might keep long enough 
for Snape to walk it to Lupin's office, maybe it won't stay fresh 
while he hikes all the way to the Shack.   
> 

Er, in that case, why does Snape make it a cauldronful at a time?

"I made an entire cauldronful," Snape continued, "if you need 
more." (same scene, a little further down the page)

No, I think it keeps all right, but has to be drunk while it's hot.  It 
will stay hot in the cauldron, but can't be reheated by magic as 
it's too unstable. There! How's that?

Pippin





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 14 00:31:38 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 00:31:38 -0000
Subject: Evil Dumbledore Was (LV delusions of superiority )
In-Reply-To: <F1113mnQPoLxNuJITJo00017d76@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a4f0ha+n4n2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35185

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., I wrote:
> >I'm wondering how significant Dumbledore's look was when he heard
> >that LV had used Harry's blood. Is LV now vulnerable?

> "Liz Sager" <ChaserChick at h...> wrote:

> I dont' buy the Evil!Dumbledore theory at all. Just to say that.
> 
What 'Evil Dumbledore'? I was rematking that Albus has some sort of 
idea. That doesn't make him evil, it makes him the general on one 
side of the coming magic war.

Uncmark




From Chelsea2162 at aol.com  Thu Feb 14 00:11:42 2002
From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:11:42 EST
Subject: Something's been bothering me about Sirius
Message-ID: <c1.1bd27d09.299c5abe@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35186

> In HPforGrownups at y..., "Felicia Rickmann" <felicia.rickmann at d...> 
> > At this mention of Sirius Black what little back history there is,
> Stan relates to Harry - already in a state of panic fleeing from an
> inflated aunt and the Dursleys, and convinced he is to be banished
> from the wizarding world.  Later, when we learn more about Sirius,
> nothing else links him to Voldemort except the Pettigrew's  
explosion.  Does it?  Sirius, we find out later, was the Potter's Secret
<Keeper, so why build a mysterious, rumour-fuelled unsubstantiated
 <element to his past linking him to Voldemort?   

          I think that Stan's speculation about Sirius was a direct link to 
the Sirius/Peter confrontation. Look at it this way - everyone knows 
Voldemort killed the Potters. Very soon after, Siruis chases Peter down,and 
in front of many spectators, Peterbegins screaming about how Sirius betrayed 
them. Obviously, people are going to say "Ah ha! Sirius betrayed he Potters, 
so he MUST be working for Voldemort,who killed them!" Stan,like everyone else 
in the wizarding world, would have heard of the 
Potters' murders, and then what happened between Sirius and Peter, and would 
have (like everyone else) assumed that Sirius was high up on Voldy's 
heirarchy. 
 
*Chelsea*




From theennead at attbi.com  Thu Feb 14 02:23:54 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:23:54 -0000
Subject: Avery and Ambushes
In-Reply-To: <a4bl0k+6ah2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4f73q+ohkc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35187

Yay!  Droves flock to the Fourth Man banner!

Well, er...two do, at any rate.  Can two people be called a "drove?"  

---

Eileen wrote:

> Elkins, I think you've hit gold here. Now, if you could tell me 
> who the third murderer is in Macbeth.... :-) 

Mmmmmm...the third murderer in Macbeth.  Let's see...

Nope, can't help you there.  But I *can* offer some very compelling
evidence to prove that it was actually Caroline Shepherd who murdered 
Roger Ackroyd.  Will that do?

> I must admit that I brushed over the fourth man the first seven 
> times I read the book... 

LOL!  What, you mean there was somebody who *didn't* view the Mystery 
of the Fourth Man as the central enigma of the entire novel?

> It is very strange that the fourth man is given no attention by 
> anyone, including Voldemort when he praises the Lestranges and 
> Crouch Jr. 

Yes!  It's bothered me for...well, for over a *year* now, that has.  
It was keeping me awake at night.  I would toss and I would turn...

> I'll also note that the description of the fourth man "thinner and 
> more nervous-looking", eyes "darting around the room" fit perfectly 
> with the nervous wreck we meet in the graveyard.

I favor Thin Nervous Eye-Darty Man as Avery myself.  But the Fourth 
Man theory is also willing to accomodate those who favor Thin Nervous 
Eye-Darty Man as Lestrange, and Thick-set Blank-Stare Man as (an 
already bordering on catatonic? or merely in a state of despair?) 
Avery.

Fourth Man is very inclusive that way.

> Now, the fourth man gets up "quietly"... It's probably Barty Crouch 
> Jr. who leaves our bleeding hearts thinking, and I can't say I 
> blame them. 

Yeah, it really was a good thing for Avery that little Barty carried 
on like that, wasn't it?  

> Even I sometimes wonder how far Crouch Jr. was in the business, 
> though we know he's not as innocent as he made out to be. 

Hey, young Crouch *could* have been innocent -- of torturing the 
Longbottoms, at any rate.  No way to know for sure, is there?  He 
sure seems like a sadist in GoF, but I imagine that ten years spent 
under the Imperius Curse could do a lot of funny things to your mind.

Fourth Man takes no strong stand on the issue of young Crouch's 
complicity in the Longbottom Affair.  

> Crouch Sr. must have been sick at heart when the bleeding hearts 
> reopened Crouch's and Avery's cases. Perhaps, if Crouch Jr. was 
> still around to be released, they wouldn't have released Avery? 
> Instead, Avery walks free and it's Crouch son who's locked up in 
> the kitchen. Must have made him furious. 

And just imagine how Crouch Jr. himself must have felt about it!  You
know how very *cranky* he could get on the subject of DEs walking 
free. 

Sort of makes you wonder what kind of things he might have told 
Voldemort about Avery, doesn't it?

> As mentioned before, the convincing part of all this is that Avery 
> really does act as if he needs forgiveness for something big. And 
> Voldemort, even if he doesn't give it, gives a semblance of it. 

Yes.  The Dark Lord was really very generous there, all things 
considered, don't you think?

Honestly, Avery *ought* to have thanked him.  Had he been a genuine 
Toady, rather than merely a Nerveless Hysteric, he would have...

<Elkins blinks down at the S.Y.C.O.P.H.A.N.T.S badge which seems to 
have made its way out of her pocket and onto her bathrobe somehow, 
shakes her head crossly, and puts it away>

> Finally, an answer for those who ask, "But how can Snape get back 
> into the DE circle?" If Avery can, Snape can too, though I'm sure 
> Voldemort has similar plans re: Cruciatus. 

I think that if that's what Snape's gotta do, then he'll manage just 
fine.  He's got tons of great excuses he can draw on, and unlike 
Avery, he isn't a Nerveless Hysteric.  It woudn't surprise me, in 
fact, if he managed to pull it off without having to endure even a 
single Cruciatus -- although unlike Cindy, I find this notion more 
relieving than disappointing.

> But, having picked up GOF and looked up the scenes, I am feeling 
> VERY surprised, and somewhat elated. Something new, and something 
> real. LOLLIPOPS I fervently believe in, but it's somewhere in the 
> past in the murky realms of motivation, this is right there under 
> our eyes. 

Aw, gee whiz, Eileen.  You're making me blush here.  But you also 
bring up one *very* strong objection to Fourth Man, so let's see if 
we can manage to resolve it.  

---

Here is the great big threatening cannon that, as Eileen points out, 
is indeed aimed straight at Fourth Man's poor palpitating little 
heart:

> "Avery-Nott-Crabbe-Goyle-"

> "You are merely repeating the names of those who were cleared of 
> being Death Eaters thirteen years ago," said Fudge angrily. "You 
> could have found those names in old reports of the trials!" 

<Elkins nods grimly>

Eeeeee-yup.  That's canon, all right.  And since I can think of no 
reason why Fudge would be lying there, we've just got to accept it.  

Okay.  So Avery *did* stand trial shortly after the Fall of Voldemort 
(presumably in late autumn or winter of 1981/1982), and he was 
cleared of the charges against him.

*This,* then, was presumably when Avery used the Imperius Defense to 
which Sirius refers in "Padfoot Returns."  It does seem to have been 
an especially popular defense in the days directly following 
Voldemort's disappearance -- presumably because at least a couple of 
people really truly *had* been kept under Imperius, only to break 
free once Voldemort was discorporated.

"People who was on his side came back ter ours.  Some of 'em came 
outta kinda trances.  Don' reckon they could've done if he was comin' 
back."
-- Hagrid, in PS.

I somehow suspect, though, that three or four years after Voldemort's 
fall, Imperius was no longer seeming like a very convincing defense.  
So let us say then that Avery's Imperius Defense was how he squirmed 
out trouble the *first* time around, back in 1981/1982.

This is all still perfectly consistent with Fourth Man.  Sirius says 
that Crouch's son was "caught with a group of Death Eaters who'd 
managed to talk their way out of Azkaban."  Avery, tried but 
aquitted, would certainly qualify.

The problem, of course, is this:

> So, Avery was acquitted thirteen years ago, as Fudge tells Harry. 
> But then, he gets "caught up" in the Longbottom fiasco, and it's 
> off to Azkaban. Later, the bleeding hearts get him out. So, why 
> tell Harry he was acquitted thirteen years ago, when he was more 
> notoriously acquitted at the most eleven years ago, probably 
> shorter? 

Oooooh, a touch!  A touch, a touch, I do confess!  Can Fourth Man be 
saved?

Hmmmm.  Well first, let's see if we can establish a time-line here.  
Dumbledore says that the attacks on the Longbottoms came "just when 
everyone thought they were safe." Given that the Ministry took some 
time to round up the last of the DEs -- that went on for about a 
year, I'm thinking -- and given how obviously traumatized the entire 
society was by Voldemort's reign of terror, and given that it must 
have taken some time for everyone (fireworks and parties on the night 
of his disappearance notwithstanding) to really and truly and 
*honestly* believe that he was Gone For Good, "just when everyone 
thought they were safe" could mean as late as 1983.

(Yeah, I *know* that most people date the Longbottom Fiasco much 
earlier than that, but I like it better my way.  Admittedly, this is 
largely because I'm also partial to Neville-With-A-Memory-Charm, 
which works much better IMO if Neville was well past the babe-in-arms 
stage by the time of the incident...but even aside from all that, I 
still think that a later date for the Longbottom Fiasco makes more 
sense.)

So let's say, oh, late 1982 or early 1983 for the Longbottom Incident 
and Avery's second arrest and trial, which would make the death of 
Crouch's wife and the supposed death of his son the winter of 
1983/1984.  Winter's good, because (a) sickly people tend to die in 
the wintertime, and (b) the weather in the Potterverse is often 
driven on the principle of pathetic fallacy, and so there really 
*ought* to have been a cold hard driving rain when Sirius watched the 
dementors burying Crouch through the bars of his cell.

Okay.  So 1984 would be the year that Crouch's popularity goes into 
sharp decline.  There's a Bleeding Heart backlash, Crouch gets 
shunted off into IMC, Fudge rides the wave to become Minister of 
Magic, and Crouch's successor comes into office at MLE and starts 
looking into old cases.  Avery stands retrial in 1984, or possibly 
early in '85.

The *second* time around, I don't think that he would have gone for 
Imperius again.  He'd already used that excuse once, and it would 
seem awfully fishy for him to claim to have been under the Imperius 
Curse *twice.*  (Once is merely unlucky.  Twice is...careless.)  And 
besides, the times had changed: by the time of his pardon, it would 
have been the mid-'80s.  The Imperius Defense was probably 'way out 
of vogue by then.

So a slight modification to the Fourth Man theory here.  Avery doesn't
claim Imperius at all at his retrial.  He claims pure and simple 
innocence.  He wasn't there, he didn't do it, he knew nothing about 
it, he was nowhere *near* the Longbottoms that night, and the only 
reason that he was arrested in the first place was because he 
happened to be over at the Lestranges' playing a rousing hand of 
Exploding Snap with them and young Crouch on the night that the 
Aurors came a'knocking on their door.  It was guilt by association, 
pure and simple.  Of course he had no *idea* that the Lestranges 
were involved in any of *that* sort of thing.  If he had, then he 
would hardly have been hanging out in their kitchen playing cards 
with them, would he?  I mean, not after what Voldemort had *done* to 
him, back in the late '70s and early '80s?  Not after the Imperius 
Curse and all?

And since there was probably never any real hard evidence against any 
of them anyway, and since unlike Mrs. Lestrange he had never once 
confessed his guilt, and since he cut a truly pathetic figure in the 
dock, and since public sentiment had turned against Crouch, and since 
everyone was feeling sorta guilty over young Barty Crouch's death, 
Avery got his pardon and walked away free.

Okay.  So why would Fudge have brought up the thirteen-year-old 
acquittal, rather than the ten-year-old pardon, when Harry mentioned 
Avery's name?  That does seem a little strange doesn't it?

<Elkins pauses, bites her lip, shifts in her chair, and then suddenly 
sits bolt upright, smiling triumphantly -- if also just a touch madly>

NO!  It does NOT!  

Because what you have to understand about Fudge is that he was swept 
into office on precisely the same wave of public sentiment that led 
to Avery's pardon -- a Bleeding Heart backlash that _did not last._

The backlash was very short-lived -- which is the reason that we see 
no Bleeding Hearts in canon.  Avery's pardon represented the break of 
that particular wave; no sooner had he walked free than the backlash 
receded quickly, leaving people feeling decidedly...ambivalent about 
the entire affair.  No other cases were in fact reexamined; the 
Avery/Crouch/Lestrange case was the only one that ever made it to 
retrial.

(And this is yet *another* reason that Sirius Black's case was never 
reexamined.  Not only did it lack the pathos of young Barty Jr.'s 
trial [thus not appealing quite so much to the Bleeding Hearts], and 
not only did Albus Dumbledore show no sign of support for the notion 
that Black might be innocent, and not only is Sirius far too *Tough* 
to be willing to take the advice of his legal counsel and try begging 
off on Imperius at retrial, but also even if Black's case was ever on 
someone's agenda, it was far enough down near the bottom of the list 
that by the time it would have been reopened, public enthusiasm for 
the entire idea of reexamining Crouch's old cases had vanished away 
entirely.)

So as things turned out, Avery's pardon did not prove to be at all 
the great political coup that Crouch's successor had hoped for.  Far 
from it: it was a bit of an embarrassment for everyone, and 
particularly for those politicians who had pushed most avidly for it -
- people like Crouch's successor...and Fudge himself.  

Fortunately for them, the cultural insistence on Not Talking Or Even 
Thinking About Those Dark Days Or Anything Related To Them that we 
see in effect in the HP books was now coming to dominate the 
wizarding zeitgeist.  Nobody now wanted to think about any of that 
stuff at *all,* which made it a simple enough matter for politicians 
who might otherwise have been embarrassed by the affair to simply 
sweep it under the carpet where (to their minds) it rightfully
belonged.

So *this* is the reason that Fudge mentions Avery's original
acquittal but not his more recent (and more notorious) pardon.  To 
mention the latter would touch far too closely on the subject of his 
own rather dubious claims to the position as Minister of Magic, as 
well as reminding everyone present of one of his own failed attempts 
to manipulate public sentiment for political advantage -- and that's 
a can of worms he most decidedly does *not* want opened right now. 
Not with these allegations of Voldemort's return and all.  His 
position could be getting unstable enough as it is in the very near 
future, without dragging in all of *that* old business.

Okay.  So, uh, where's the canon?

<thinks>

"Padfoot Returns."  The canonical suggestion for all of this is 
in "Padfoot Returns," when Sirius first says of younger Crouch that 
he was "caught with a group of Death Eaters who'd managed to talk 
their way out of Azkaban," and *then* that he "was definitely caught 
in the company of people I'd bet my life were Death Eaters -- but he 
might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Well, that's an interesting ambiguity, isn't it?  First he says that 
the people Crouch was caught with *were* Death Eaters, next only that 
they were people he would "bet his life" were Death Eaters.  Well, 
come on, Sirius.  Which is it?

The deep ambivalence that Sirius reveals there is perfectly
consistent with a scenario in which the people he's referring to 
include both those he is *certain* are guilty (Lestranges), and those 
about whose guilt he is undecided (Avery).  This undecidedness is 
consistent with the overall cultural attitude toward the Avery 
Affair -- Sirius, you will remember, has come by the majority of his 
information on this subject *after* his escape from Azkaban ("This is 
mostly stuff I've found out since I got out"); it was evidently not 
an incident that was much gibbered about by the imprisoned DEs.  And 
Sirius' suggestion that Crouch might just "have been in the wrong 
place at the wrong time" is telling as well -- wherever would he have 
come by this idea?  Why, from Avery's own defense, of course!

<pantpantpant>

There.  Does that work?  If anyone has a better suggestion, I'd love 
to hear it.

---

Now, on to the question of whether Avery (who, as we all know, is by 
far the MOST important character in all of canon!) was ever a 
Ministry official, or if he was, whether he still is now.

Cindy wants Avery to have been the head of the Department of Magical
Catastrophies (even at the tender age of twenty-one), so that she can
have him responsible for tampering with evidence in the Sirius Black
case and for recovering Voldemort's wand from the rubble at Godric's
Hollow.  She also wants him to have been given this position back 
after his release from Azkaban and sees no problem with the notion
that Sirius would have failed to mention this, or that he would 
continue to perceive Avery as no particular threat to Harry, or that 
he would list his name last when he rattles off the names of Snape's 
old classmates.  She writes:

> Ah, but look at who else Sirius mentions.  He mentions Rosier 
> (dangerous and crazy enough to take on Moody)...

And dead.

> ...Wilkes (dangerous and crazy enough to take on Voldemort)...

And dead.

> ...and the Lestranges (just plain dangerous and crazy).  

And in Azkaban.

> Wouldn't you mention Avery last out of that group, even if he were 
> responsible for a department that has responsibilities for little 
> things like deflating Aunt Marge?

Er...no.  I wouldn't.  Not unless there were some reason for 
believing him to be really *really* non-threatening, which I hardly 
think that I would have if he had managed to become the head of a 
Ministry Department.

Nor, if he were the head of a Ministry Department, would I refer to 
him merely as 'still at large.'  Being the head of a Ministry 
Department isn't being 'at large,' it's being 'in *power.*'

And besides, the DMC isn't a lame department at all.  Working for the 
DMC must involve a good deal of interaction with many different 
departments, as well as with the Muggle authorities: it's not all 
Aunt-deflating and street-sweeping, you know.  Remember, it was 
Fudge's department, right before he made Minister of Magic.  (Now you 
in the back there, *stop* that snickering.  Yes, Fudge is lame.  But 
he's also the Minister of Magic, so he must have *something* on the 
ball.)  If someone like Fudge can vault himself straight from DMC to 
Buck Stops Here, then I really doubt that the DMC has at all the Lame 
Duck reputation that you suggest.  

But since you've been so nice about swallowing down my Fourth Man 
theory, I'll tell you what I'm gonna do for you here: I'll give you 
Avery in the DMC.  Okay?  Avery *was* in the DMC.  He wasn't the 
Department *Head,* mind, but he was a junior minister in the 
department, just like Fudge.  He was the chief investigator assigned 
to the muggle-blasting site, where he confiscated Sirius Black's wand 
(so that it couldn't be Priori Incantatem'd) and tampered with a bit 
of the evidence to make Sirius' guilt seem all that much more 
incontrovertible.

He was particularly motivated to do this, you see, because Sirius had 
once played a rather nasty prank on him back in their school days, 
and...

Well, okay.  So that part's optional.  You don't have to accept that 
part, if you don't want to.  

There, Cindy.  You can have Avery-Helped-To-Snooker-Sirius-Black.  
But I'm not willing to give you Avery-Retrieved-Voldemort's-Wand-From-
Godric's-Hollow as well, because that would run completely counter to 
the entire "Avery has avoided the other DEs like the plague ever 
since his release from Azkaban" aspect of the Fourth Man theory, 
which is central.  

Pettigrew can have Voldemort's wand all to himself. <snerk>

---

So what did Avery do after his release from prison?  He certainly 
didn't go looking for Voldemort (his failure to do so is absolutely 
essential to the Fourth Man theory).  I suggested that he moved into 
his mother's basement and took up coin collecting.  But Cindy 
insisted:

> His mother's basement?  No, probably not.  I think Avery gets out 
> of Azkaban, and Fudge has been promoted to Minister of Magic....So 
> Avery asks for his old job back.  Fudge knows and likes Avery, and 
> Fudge (being prone to denying the obvious) never really believed 
> Avery was guilty.  Who knows?  Maybe Fudge pardoned Avery 
> singlehandedly.  The DMC is now very short of people who know how 
> to puncture Aunts, so Fudge gives Avery his old job, with back pay 
> to compensate for Avery's wrongful imprisonment.  

Mmmmmm.  Yeah, okay.  I'm willing to run with this, if only because 
it offers yet *more* reason for Fudge to have wanted to avoid the 
issue of Avery's second acquittal altogether.  Probably even Fudge 
has come to suspect, way down deep in his very heart of hearts, that 
Avery really was guilty all along.

But I still can't buy Avery as Department Head.  The Fourth Man 
theory is far too dependent on the notion that Avery Has Had Enough, 
and Had-Enough Avery wouldn't seek a position of such prestige or 
power.  Too dangerous.

No, if Avery's in DMC, then he's still a lowly (but NOT yet middle-
aged!) desk drone, mistrusted and ill-respected by his co-workers, 
who occasionally gather around the water cooler to mutter darkly 
among themselves while shooting him suspicious glances.  (He takes 
far too many sick days, too, and occasionally goes on extended 
personal leaves of absence for "reasons of emotional health.")

> Avery does, however, resist all contact from Death Eaters like 
> Lucius who would like to go on a Voldemort hunt.  

You think Lucius ever wanted to go on a Voldemort hunt?  I doubt it.

But yes.  Avery resists all contact from former DE colleagues.  In 
fact, he may well have children.  If he does, then the reason we've 
never heard of them is that he sent them off to Beauxbatons or 
someplace.  He wouldn't want them at Hogwarts, where they would be 
exposed not only to all of the other DEs' children, but also to the 
potentially corrupting influence of his old friend, Severus Snape -- 
a bad influence if Avery'd ever known one.

But speaking of Snape, Eileen points out a problem with my 
speculations:

> Now, Elkins suggests we'll meet Avery again and not know who he is. 
> I don't see how we can work this, especially if Avery is in the 
> Ministry, as Cindy insists. 

Well, if he's just a lowly drone these days, then that's not a 
problem.  Snape, though...Snape's a big problem.  Avery can't very 
well go skulking about Hogwarts Up To No Good with his old buddy 
Severus lurking around.  Snape would recognize him, and more to the 
point (since Snape could be up to his old tricks in Book Five) so 
would a bunch of the other adult characters: McGonagall, Hagrid, 
Dumbledore, Flitwick...  

Yeah, okay.  So if any bit of plot does revolve around Unrecognized 
DE Avery, I guess it'll have to be a fairly minor one, and take place 
outside of Hogwarts.

<sigh>

Boy.  Good thing I didn't put any money down on that one.  Isn't it.

---

And finally, on the question of how Evil Avery Really Is, Eileen 
wrote:

> ....it won't be some yet unknown virtuous Slytherin (a relative of 
> Avery, or is Avery really evil now?). 

Well, now, that all depends on which flavor of Fourth Man you prefer.

In "No-frills Fourth Man," Avery sure would seem to be pretty darned
Evil, if also very Weak.  But you could also choose "Fourth Man With 
Remorse," in which Avery truly regrets his past wrongdoings and has 
been leading a virtuous and muggle-embracing lifestyle for the past 
decade in his attempt to atone for all of his sins.  Or, you could go 
for "Fourth Man With SHIP," in which Avery never really was all 
*that* Evil, and only became a DE in the first place due to his 
hopeless desire to impress the future Mrs. Lestrange.  Or you can 
favor "Fourth Man With Imperius," in which Avery proves either too 
squeamish or too genuinely Good to be a very successful DE, and so 
really *was* put under the Imperius Curse by fellow DEs to guide him 
safely through his unwisely-chosen lifestyle.  ("Fourth Man With 
Imperius" also has the added advantage of explaining why poor Avery 
seems so highly suggestible: it's all that Imperius, you see, it 
messed with his mind and left him highly vulnerable to outside 
influence...)

Or I suppose that if you really want him to be innocent, you could 
even go for "Fourth Man With Innocence," in which Avery really *did* 
have nothing to do with the attack on the Longbottoms, but was merely 
in the wrong place at the wrong time when the Aurors broke down the 
door.  

And, of course, there are combinations.  Fourth Man With SHIP, 
Imperius, *and* Remorse is certainly a possibility, and one likely to 
appeal to those who really want to lay a great heaping load o' pathos 
on poor Avery's trembling head.  Fourth Man with SHIP and Imperius, 
on the other hand, is more for those with a taste for perversion, and 
Fourth Man With Innocence and Remorse for those who prefer righteous 
angst to venal whining.

So really, Avery can be just about as Evil or as Redeemable as you 
like him under the Fourth Man Theory.  One thing that he cannot be, 
however, is *Tough.*  

Which brings us to Ambushes...

---

Cindy (who is sold on the Fourth Man Theory, but feels confident that 
these S.Y.C.O.P.H.A.N.T.S. members eat their ice cream straight from 
the carton while lying in bed) wrote:

> This is a dream come true!  People are buying the ambush idea in 
> droves (how many people does it take to make a drove, anyway?)!  

TWO!!!!  It takes TWO people to make a drove!

> We're now to the point of talking about ambushes like . . . like 
> there's actually some canon to support them or something! 

<small exasperated noise>  

But of course there is!  There's *plenty* of canonical suggestion to 
support the idea of an ambush.  We have Severus Snape spying for 
Dumbledore; we have Rosier, who "preferred to fight rather than come 
quietly" and took a piece of Moody with him; we have Dolohov -- 
*clearly* a member of Karkaroff's "cell" -- apprehended at the same 
time as Rosier's death...can there really be any *doubt* that we're 
talking ambush here?

O ye of little faith.

> Are we all agreed that Snape arranged the ambush(es) to prove 
> his loyalty to Dumbledore?  Please?  Pretty please?

Nope.  Sorry, can't climb on that wagon.  For one thing, the entire
idea of Albus Dumbledore demanding a blood sacrifice as a proof of
loyalty is utterly sickening.  For another thing, it doesn't even 
make any *sense.*  I mean, surely Big Bad Evil Voldemort would be
perfectly willing to sacrifice a couple of his younger Death Eaters 
to help his valuable spy trick muggle-loving old fool Dumbledore, 
wouldn't he?  (Hell, even *I'd* be willing to do that, and I'm just a 
SYCOPHANT, not an Evil Overlord.)  And surely Dumbledore would 
realize that.  So Snape's willingness to lead his colleagues into an 
ambush wouldn't even be a very *good* proof of his loyalty.

No, I think that Dumbledore was convinced of Snape's sincerity when 
Fawkes hopped into Snape's lap to *snuggle* with him.

Snape snarled and batted at the wretched creature, of course, but by 
that time it was too late: Dumbledore was onto him.

But, yeah.  I *do* think that Snape's information was what tipped off
the Aurors, thus allowing them to set up the ambush(es).  Is that
good enough?

> Well, now that we know for a fact that there absolutely, definitely 
> was an ambush, regardless of what JKR has to say about the matter...

Absolutely!  

<bounces up and down excitedly in chair>

Ambushambushambush!!


>...we have to pin down how it happened.  Here's what we know:

> 1.  Karkaroff.  In the Pensieve, Karkaroff has already been 
> convicted.  Moody apparently took 6 months to track Karkaroff down. 

Yet by the time Karkaroff is testifying before the hearing, Voldemort
has _already fallen._  This gets important later on.

> 2.  Dolohov.  Captured "shortly after" Karkaroff, but Karkaroff 
> doesn't know this.  Karkaroff definitely knew Dolohov, as he saw 
> him torture people.

And helped him to do it.  Or was that just vile slander, O Brave 
Defender of Poor Igor?

> 3.  Rosier.  Caught "shortly after" Karkaroff also.  Dead, but took 
> a piece of Moody with him.  Karkaroff knew him, too.

We also know that both Rosier and Wilkes were "killed by Aurors the 
year before Voldemort fell."  Sirius says so.

What this means is that Karkaroff and Dolohov were both also 
apprehended "the year before Voldemort fell."  By the time of the 
Pensieve hearing, then, Karkaroff has already been in prison for some 
months -- perhaps even for a full year.

(There now, Cindy, you see?  There's another point in poor Igor's 
favor.  He *did* spend a good long time with the dementors before he 
cracked and offered to start naming names.)

(Yes.  You're welcome.)

> 4.  Travers and Mulciber.  Fingered by Karkaroff, but already 
> apprehended.

We don't know when, though, nor even whether it happened before or 
after Voldemort's fall.  They were still at large when Karkaroff 
himself was caught, but that could have been up to a year ago.

> 5.  Wilkes.  Karkaroff doesn't finger Wilkes, but Wilkes is dead, 
> having expired the year before Voldemort fell.

Not just dead.  Not just expired.  Killed by Aurors.  Sirius says 
that Wilkes was "killed by Aurors."  He might have been killed before
Karkaroff's arrest, or he might not have been.

> Karkaroff is desperately casting about for names, and we have to 
> presume he names every single Death Eater he can think of.  

I agree.  So in Karkaroff's cell, we have Dolohov, Rosier, Travers,
Mulciber, and Snape.  Wilkes *may* have been there as well: Karkaroff
could have neglected to mention him because he already knew of Wilkes'
death.  And then there's Rookwood.  I don't believe that Rookwood was
really a member of the cell proper.  But more on that below.

Karkaroff didn't know Avery, the Lestranges, or Crouch Jr.  If he had,
he would have fingered them.  Agreed.

> This, uh, destroys Elkins' half-hearted "Karkaroff Was Mrs.
> Lestranges' Little Pet Igor" theory, thank goodness.  

No, no, no, Cindy!  You're confused.  It's *Avery* who might have been
the Dead Sexy Mrs. Lestrange's Little Pet.  That's the operating
premise of "Fourth Man With SHIP and Imperius," a fine and upstanding 
(if also rather perverted) variant on Fourth MAn that has nothing in 
the least bit half-hearted about it!

> So I'm thinking that in the Pensieve scene, Karkaroff knows nothing 
> about the ambush at all, which is why he keeps naming people who 
> are captured or dead.  That leads me to believe that the people he 
> names were the victims of the ambush.

Absolutely.  Karkaroff was caught by Moody before the ambush 
happened.  

It would seem to not have been all *that* bloody of an ambush, alas, 
but you can't have everything...

> Wilkes?  Who knows?  I guess he wasn't in the ambush.  Maybe 
> Voldemort killed him. :-)

Aurors, dammit.  Wilkes was killed by Aurors.  Sirius says so.

Of course, Sirius never says that Wilkes was a 'he' at all.  Perhaps 
Wilkes was actually *Florence* Wilkes, Snape's lost love, whom he 
used to snog romantically behind the greenhouses back in their 
Hogwarts days...until they were caught out and humiliated by that 
meddling little Nosy Parker Bertha Jorkins, that is.  No wonder he 
hexed her!

Alas, Love Of Wilkes Left Anguish, Polluting Our Poor Severus, which 
is the reason that he's always so damned cranky, and the reason that 
he joined the DEs in the first place, and the reason that he picks on 
poor little Neville Longbottom (Frank was the one who killed 
Florence, you see), and the reason that he was willing to defect to 
Dumbledore's cause (for with Florence gone, why would he remain in 
their midst?), and the reason that he will never, EVER be able to 
love again...

<Elkins grins and tosses a seashell lazily -- if with no real malice -
- out to sea in the general direction of the Good Ship 
L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S.>


> I know what you're thinking.  Karkaroff also names Rookwood, who we 
> know was still at large.  Ah, but Rookwood is the head of the 
> Department of Mysteries, making him, well, mysterious.  Why wasn't 
> Rookwood at the ambush?  It's because Rookwood had intelligence 
> that the ambush was going down.

<blink>

Rookwood wasn't actually the *head* of the Department of Mysteries, 
surely.  Is that really stated anywhere?  I thought he was just a 
member of the department.

But at any rate, I refuse to believe that Rookwood was a member of 
Karkaroff's little gang of thugs.  He filled some sort of 
intelligence function for the organization as a whole, I think, and 
the fact that Karkaroff actually knew his identity was probably an 
accident.  Karkaroff knows that Rookwood's the best he has to offer, 
which is why he saves his name for last...er, except for Snape's, 
that is.  He didn't name Snape until the very end because he, um... 
<clears throat> liked the guy.

So that's why Rookwood wasn't caught in the ambush, IMO.  Not because
he caught wind of it ahead of time, but simply because he was far too
important to be out and about torturing muggles with Karkaroff and his
little death squad.  Rookwood was intelligence.  He had Big Important 
Taking Over the Wizarding World stuff that he was working on;
Voldemort didn't want him wasting his time on *frivolities.*

> To recap, then, we have Death Eater Cell 1 with Rookwood, 
> Karkaroff, Wilkes, Travers, Dolohov, Snape, Mulciber.  

I hold out against Rookwood.  And I'm not entirely sure about Mulciber
either, come to think of it -- does the Imperius Specialist really 
travel around with a Thug Squad?  Or is he more of a specialist who 
gets called in for special occasions?  Could be the latter, and 
Karkaroff could have just known his name.

> Tell ya what I'm gonna do.  We can have A Great Ambush with 
> Dolohov, Rosier, Travers, Mulciber.  It's two Aurors against four 
> Death Eaters.  

<Elkins opens her eyes wide, breathless with anticipation>

> Rosier is a loose cannon who has always been a great shot and a 
> little too impressed with his own dueling abilities.  

A loose canon?  Who woulda thought it?

> Rosier sees Moody and immediately knows he has been set up.  Moody 
> starts to shout out something like "Keep your wand where I can see 
> it, and let's talk about this, because we wouldn't want anyone to 
> get . . . "  Rosier pulls out his wand and tries to blast Moody,
> but misses wide right and grazes a chunk from Moody's nose.  Moody, 
> (being Tough so that one little wand blast will never bring him 
> down) shows no mercy and blasts Rosier point blank, right between 
> the eyes, just like Elkins so desperately wants.  

<Elkins, beside herself with excitement, jumps up and down in her 
seat, shrieking happily>

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!  Bloody ambush!  Bloody ambush!  Bloody ambush!

> Then Travers, Mulciber and Dolohov put up a fierce struggle against 
> Frank Longbottom, who eventually subdues all three in a glorious 
> firefight.  

YAY!!!!!!!!!!  Glorious firefight!  Glorious firefight!  Glorious 
firefi--

<Elkins stops abruptly.  Her expression of bloodthirsty satisfaction 
slowly dissolves into one of stark horror>

Oh, good Lord.  When precisely did I *get* like this?  

Cindy?  Are you *sure* there was nothing in that brandy?

> (Moody helps a little, but Frank does the heavy lifting).  Moody, 
> being a fabulous guy and also rather thankful that Frank saved 
> Moody's life in the firefight...

Well, that creates some sort of a mystic bond between wizards, right?

> ...tells everyone how fabulous Frank is and gives him all the 
> credit in the Daily Prophet, making Frank very popular.  (This 
> makes the scenes between Fake Moody and Neville all the more 
> chilling because Real Moody has told Crouch Jr. all about this, and 
> Fake Moody uses it to get close to Neville.)  

Hmmmmm....  Neville...  Fake Moody... Longbottom Incident...  Mystic 
bonds between wizards...

Hey, wait!  Didn't Eileen want us to thow a memory charm theory in 
here somewhere?

Well, this isn't quite a Memory Charm Theory, but it's on a related 
topic, so here goes.

How's this?  Crouch didn't really *need* this story to get close to
Neville.  You see, Neville is _instinctively drawn_ to Fake Moody
anyway, due to the mystic bond formed when one wizard saves another's 
life, because back when Neville was but a wee toddler, young Barty 
Crouch took pity on him and *hid* him from Avery and the Lestranges 
when they were targetting Frank's family.

Neville can't really remember this, of course, because of the whole 
Memory Charm thing, but the bond is still there: he responds to it as 
a matter of instinct.  It's the reason that he's willing to speak up 
in class even when the subject matter is the dread Cruciatus Curse; 
it's the reason that he's willing to venture into Scary Fake Moody's 
office to have tea with him; and it's the reason that Fake Moody's 
herbology praise is so very effective in giving him that nice boost 
of self-esteem.

And as for Crouch himself: that explanation that he gives Harry of 
why he took Neville under his wing is not entirely accurate.  It 
wasn't until he already *had* Neville in his office for a while, and 
had already fed him some hot chocolate and biscuits, and talked him 
down from his state of rather extreme distress, and been generally 
uncharacteristically kind and compassionate to him that it even 
*occurred* to him that he could turn this situation to his advantage 
by planting the Water Plants book.  The ploy was really only an 
afterthought.  It wasn't until well into his tea-and-sympathy 
conversation with Neville that he even *learned* that the kid was
particularly friendly with Harry.  That's when he thought of 
planting the book on him.  But as to why he felt compelled to show
such kindness to young Longbottom in the first place...well, Crouch 
could never understand that *himself.*  It rather preyed on his mind, 
in fact -- it disturbed him -- and so he eventually succeeded in
convincing himself that planting the book had actually been his 
Cunning Plan all along.  In actuality, however, he had merely been 
a helpless pawn of that mystic bond forged between wizards when one 
saves another's life.

There.  How's *that* for subversive?  ;-)


> I also like this theory because it explains why Mrs. Lestrange went 
> after Frank....she picks Frank because she wants revenge for his 
> role in the ambush because he killed her old flame Rosier.  (She 
> doesn't know it was Moody who killed Rosier because Moody gave 
> Frank all the credit, and Mrs. Lestrange is still a little woozy 
> from her time in Azkaban.)  

Woozy?  From a mere couple of weeks awaiting trial in Azkaban?  

Hah!  The Dead Sexy Mrs. Lestrange is way too *Tough* to get that 
easily woozed.

No, she knew perfectly well that Moody was the one who killed
Rosier.  That's why she did such an inspired number on the poor man's 
leg, and his eye, and heaven only knows what other body parts that 
*could* be salvaged over at St. Mungo's without resort to the magical 
bionics. (I quite agree with Cindy that this *must* be the reason 
that Moody was not present at her trial.)

No, she went after *Longbottom* because Longbottom killed *Wilkes.*

(Haven't I told you again and again that Longbottom killed Wilkes?)

> Anyway, I know I'm a little short on canon here.  

Canon?  Oh, right.  That.

> But you have to admit that JKR seems to have been very precise in 
> weaving a rather complex tale of which DEs did what and where 
> everyone was at particular points in the timeline.  I doubt that 
> it was all random.

The truth is out there.


-- Elkins




From devin.smither at yale.edu  Thu Feb 14 03:57:02 2002
From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 03:57:02 -0000
Subject: HA! WAS Re: Voldemort in need of a good memory aid?
In-Reply-To: <00db01c1b4ec$782114c0$a54e28d1@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <a4fcie+inm9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35188

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Saitaina" <saitaina at w...> wrote:
> Probably mentioned but I must bring it up after re-reading 
CoS....Voldemort
> has a horrible memory for important things.  He forgot the old 
magic's that
> kept Harry alive and his younger self forgot the healing powers of 
the
> Phoenix.  Makes me wonder what else he could have, will have 
forgotten.
> Could this be another plot point we will see again?  Could 
Voldemort one day
> forget how to pronounce Avada Kadavra?
> 

It's silly, but I just had to write this.

Right after I read this post, I just got this funny image in my head 
of the final duel in Book VII (should there be such a thing).  After 
revelation after revelation and spectacular duel description after 
spectacular duel description, Harry lies wounded with Voldemort 
pointing his wand at him.

"Ha ha!  I have you now Potter.  The curse won't bounce this time!  
Avada..."  Puzzled pause..."Avada...Avada..."

Harry, his wand vaguely pointed in Voldemort's direction, innocently 
suggests without any malicious intent, "Avada Kedavra?"

Whoosh of green light.  Thud.  So ends a rivalry for the ages.

......

Well, I thought it was funny, anyway.

In a slightly more serious bit of discussion (though also silly), 
it's interesting that a mangled form of the killing curse,  
"Abracadabra," has reached Muggle ears.  I guess wizards aren't too 
worried about its presence in English now, but it seems like a mild 
slip-up on the MoM's or someone's part that any form of the killing 
curse survives in the English language at all.  It sort of makes me 
wonder what all bastardized versions of wizard words and knowledge 
Muggles have.  Are there any other examples from canon?  I'm not 
recalling, immediately.

Devin




From mervin180 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 14 04:07:47 2002
From: mervin180 at yahoo.com (mervin180)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:07:47 -0000
Subject: Cosmetic Magic and Wizard Attitudes - No Wizard Cosmo
In-Reply-To: <a493dm+jdo3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4fd6j+lsbb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35189

uncmark <uncmark at yahoo.com> wrote:
>I was rereading posts about cosmetic surgery and wondered how 
>different attitudes towards physical beauty were in the wizard world.

Thanks for the intriguing post, uncmark!

>Molly Weasley, a powerful witch and mother, does use magic for her 
>housework. In GofF she cooks for 11 people before the World Cup, yet 
>she doesn't use magic to resemble a model.

Perhaps Molly, like many muggle women, is secure enough with her body 
to not want to change it.  She might be very proud that her larger 
body structure allowed her to carry, birth, nourish, and nurture 7 
children.  Although she may not be model-perfect, she still may find 
her body beautiful.

jrober4211 wrote:
>I think there is enough examples in 
>the books to point to the fact that we [wizards and muggles] share 
>the same standards of 
>beauty.

I tend to agree with this statement.  There is probably a lot of 
pressure in both worlds to look beautiful.  Yet, just because 
cosmetic surgery is available to muggles does not mean that all 
muggles would get it if the opportunity arose.  Although there are 
probably many ways to magically alter one's appearance, many wizards 
probably choose not to do so.  Whether wizard or muggle, one can 
learn to accept and love one's body for what it is. 

Cheers!
***Angie***







From golden_faile at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 14 04:18:17 2002
From: golden_faile at yahoo.com (golden faile)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:18:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cosmetic Magic and Wizard Attitudes - No Wizard Cosmo
In-Reply-To: <a4fd6j+lsbb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020214041817.5825.qmail@web14610.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35190


--- mervin180 <mervin180 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> uncmark <uncmark at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I was rereading posts about cosmetic surgery and
> wondered how 
> >different attitudes towards physical beauty were in
> the wizard world.
> 
> 
> 
> >Molly Weasley, a powerful witch and mother, does
> use magic for her 
> >housework. In GofF she cooks for 11 people before
> the World Cup, yet 
> >she doesn't use magic to resemble a model.
> 
> Perhaps Molly, like many muggle women, is secure
> enough with her body 
> to not want to change it.  > jrober4211 wrote:
> >I think there is enough examples in 
> >the books to point to the fact that we [wizards and
> muggles] share 
> >the same standards of 
> >beauty.
> 
> I tend to agree with this statement.  There is
> probably a lot of 
> pressure in both worlds to look beautiful.  Yet,
> just because 
> cosmetic surgery is available to muggles does not
> mean that all 
> muggles would get it if the opportunity arose. 
> Although there are 
> probably many ways to magically alter one's
> appearance, many wizards 
> probably choose not to do so.  


OR maybe you need a trained Medi-wizard type to
perform these changes, and maybe (like it is in the
muggle world) this is very expensive. Making it
possible for only a select few, let alone a family
with negative cash flow like the Weasley's.

Laila

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com



From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 14 04:22:26 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:22:26 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Evil Dumbledore Was (LV delusions of superiority )
Message-ID: <F204dV1WwAxkKO8nAEY0001e783@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35191

> > "Liz Sager" <ChaserChick at h...> wrote:
>
> > I dont' buy the Evil!Dumbledore theory at all. Just to say that.

uncmark replied:
>What 'Evil Dumbledore'? I was rematking that Albus has some sort of
>idea. That doesn't make him evil, it makes him the general on one
>side of the coming magic war.

There's a theory running 'round that the gleam of triumph means Dumbledore 
is *gasp* evil. I don't happen to buy it. I apologize for my lack or 
clarity, I was in a hurry to finish the e-mail and get to church, and pulled 
the first thing that involves that gleam in his eye that came to my mind, 
and that happened to be it.

Liz (who continues to apologize for being in a hurry, but tis life)

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




From devin.smither at yale.edu  Thu Feb 14 04:35:22 2002
From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 04:35:22 -0000
Subject: Would Lucius have gone on a Voldy hunt?
Message-ID: <a4feqa+5438@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35192

I know, I know what you're thinking.  "Of COURSE he wouldn't!  He's 
got his reputation to uphold, and he flees the Dark Mark just like 
every other DE in GoF.  You're a fool to even bring up the question."

I would have agreed with you until a couple of days ago, when I 
realized that *dun, dun, dun!* Lucius gave Ginny Riddle's diary.

Now, I suppose we can say that he was really doing it more to get 
Ginny to murder some Mudbloods and ruin Arthur's reputation 
(tarnished with Muggle love as it already is) than to bring old Voldy 
back, but he must have known that was going to happen.

(Side note: I suppose if Riddle had succeeded, he would've tracked 
down the undead form of his older self and somehow reunited with it)

This begs the question: why does he seem to have pretty cold feet 
about the whole idea of Voldemort coming back at any other time?

I'd say it's because he's in public almost every time we encounter 
him.  Even when someone shoots the Dark Mark into the air and you're 
EAGER to have Voldemort back, you don't run to it because you don't 
want to get caught.

I don't think I entirely understand Lucius's seeming reluctance to 
bring Voldy back to power, but it seems his CoS antics at least 
suggest he was trying to engender it in some way, even if he wasn't 
as brimmingly enthusiastic as Crouch Jr.  However, if someone has a 
better idea about his motives in giving Ginny the diary in CoS, I'd 
like to hear it.

Devin, thinking of a possible scenario of Voldemort giving Lucius the 
diary sometime in the late '70s/early '80s "just in case"




From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Thu Feb 14 05:19:36 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:19:36 -0000
Subject: Sirius Exonerated
Message-ID: <a4fhd8+i64a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35193

Hey, sometimes fate really smiles on a person, you know?  I've been 
following the Sirius vs. Snape debate with somewhat more attention 
than it probably deserves but with unflagging interest. And wouldn't 
you know, I came across something that clarifies the debate. The 
other day, while I was browsing through an old bookstore, I happened 
upon a large, old Herbology book made up of folios and such. As I was 
leafing through, I noticed a piece of folded parchment nestled 
between two pages. I opened it up and was really surprised to see 
"Sirius Black" on it. I quickly stuffed it in my coat, scooted home, 
and read it over about three times. I thought the readers on this 
group would be interested in the content, so I transcribed it for 
your perusal. I think this should settle a few issues.

--Dicentra, who swears it's all true

*****

Date: August 7th, 1993.
Subject: Inquiry into evidence of an accomplice in the escape of 
Sirius Black from Azkaban

Pursuant to the discovery of the method used by Sirius Black to 
escape from Azkaban on the 30th day of July, 1993, one Crenshaw 
Critchley, whose cell adjoined that of Sirius Black, indicated that 
he had seen someone visit Black shortly before his escape. Critchley 
reports that on the 21st of July 1993, a woman with long blonde hair 
and Muggle clothing visited Black in his cell. Under the Recordatio 
Verbatim spell, Critchley was made to recall the conversation between 
the woman and Black. Present at the inquiry were Cornelius Fudge, 
Minister of Magic, and three Dementors.

The following is the transcription of Critchley's recollection:

Blonde Woman: Hello, Siri. It's me.

Sirius Black: (silence)

BW: It's time. Are you ready?

SB: (silence)

BW: Come on, how about a little hug for your--

SB: Don't touch me.

BW: But I thought that you'd be happy to see me after...

SB: TWELVE YEARS!!! You've kept me here for TWELVE BLOODY YEARS!!!

BW:  I know, I know...

SB: You never said I would be here for TWELVE YEARS! You said that my 
name would be cleared and I could go free.  

BW: And it will. I'm about to set all of that in motion. So. How have 
you been?

SB: A lot you care.  

BW: I kept the Dementors off you like I promised, didn't I?

SB: Yes, you did. But that was hardly a favor. I think I would have 
preferred the madness to the boredom of being alone for, what was it? 
TWELVE YEARS!!

BW: I see you haven't lost your sense of humor. It's taken a rather 
dark turn, but it tells me you're still all right.

SB: (hmph)

BW: I'm sorry it took so long, but the setup is worth it. 

SB: "Setup" being the operative word...

BW: Look, I'll make it up to you. I'm arranging your, um, release 
even as we speak.

SB: They've captured Pettigrew!

BW: No, not yet. 

SB: That RAT has evaded capture for 12 years! You couldn't arrange 
for his capture earlier?

BW: It wouldn't be half as interesting that way. Listen, this is what 
I've got planned. It's Harry's third year at Hogwarts....

SB: Harry! How's he doing? 

BW: He's fine. Let me finish. The third years, as you recall, get to 
visit Hogsmeade a few times a year. But I'll make sure Harry doesn't 
get his permission slip signed.

SB: How nice of you....

BW: But that won't stop him from going. He's going to find a way to 
get there anyway. 

SB: So he breaks the rules and gets some candy. THAT's interesting.

BW: No, it's not. Not unless there's some danger lurking around the 
Hogwarts area. Danger that's targeted Harry himself...

SB: You haven't brought back Voldemort...  Please tell me you're not 
setting him on Harry again.

BW: Harry has faced him down two times since he started school, and 
he's fine, don't worry. No, I'm not sending Voldemort after him.  I'm 
sending you.
 
SB: Me? Why would I go after Harry?

BW: Supposedly, it's because he brought down your Lord and Master. 
People will think you're trying to finish what Voldemort started. 
Besides, I need a kind of "menace on the periphery." Someone who's 
"out there," who could attack at any moment. It makes Harry's illegal 
escapades in Hogsmeade all the more dangerous. And exciting.

SB: Sorry, but I won't be all that convincing as a menace to Harry.  
If I see him after all these years I'm more likely to hug him to 
death than...

BW: Actually, you won't be going after Harry. You'll be going after 
Peter.

SB: Pettigrew? Hey, now that's more like it! But why the subterfuge?

BW: It's called a "red herring." Everyone will think you're after 
Harry, and that will set up some really remarkable dramatic tension.

SB: Where do I find the little #^%$?. 

BW: Peter has spent the last twelve years as the pet rat of the 
Weasley family. His current owner, Ron, is Harry's best friend. No 
one knows he's an animagus.

SB: He hasn't done anything to Harry...

BW: No. He's just lying low, biding his time, waiting for his 
Master's return. Harry means nothing to him right now.

SB: Are you *really* going to let me finally catch that traitorous 
slimeball of a Rat?

BW: Yes, you'll have your chance. But not until the end of the school 
year. Before that, I need you to shake things up a bit. Be seen at 
Hogwarts, do some damage. Make it look like Harry's in danger. I was 
thinking that while everyone is at the Halloween feast you could go 
after Peter in the Gryffindor dorms, but since you won't know the 
password, you might have to try to force your way in. Canvas tears 
rather easily, you know...

SB: You want me to slash the Fat Lady? But I liked her!

BW: She'll get out of the way, don't worry. But you won't get to 
Peter yet. Near the end of January, I want you to sneak into Harry's 
dorm room at night. Take a knife to Ron's bed curtains. Make sure 
someone sees you, then take off. That should be enough to keep the 
tension level up.

SB: So how do I get into Hogwarts without being caught? I can't just 
waltz in, and I doubt a large black dog will go unnoticed, either.

BW: You'll find a ginger-colored cat on the grounds named 
Crookshanks. He's half kneazle, so he can help you. Hide in the 
Forbidden Forest until then. Oh, and watch out for Dementors. 
Dumbledore will have no choice but to allow them to patrol the 
perimeter.

SB: I'm not sure I like this. Not only do I get out of here while 
everyone still thinks I'm guilty, I have to terrorize a bunch of 
kids, all the while risking the Dementor's Kiss, and if any wizard at 
all sees me, it's Avada Kedav...

BW: No one knows about Padfoot except Peter and Remus.  Neither has 
motive to reveal your animagus form.

SB: Remus! My old friend! What's he up to?

BW: He's teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts this year at 
Hogwarts. But don't get any ideas about finding an ally. He thinks 
you're guilty and he's been angry with you all these years for 
betraying Lily and James. I wouldn't risk contacting anyone at all, 
for that matter. Even Dumbledore thinks you're guilty.  Severus is 
there, too, as Potions Master. I think you know how he feels about 
you.

SB: That oily git! Potions Master! He can't even brew tea!

BW: I hope you realize that at some point you're going to have to get 
along with him.

SB: Don't hold your breath. He's still sore about that tunnel 
incident, isn't he?

BW: I suppose so.

SB: It's not like he didn't deserve it. How come you had to send 
James in after him? Worried that your precious Severus would get bit 
by a werewolf?

BW: Precious! Severus? No, I was worried about Lupin. He would never 
have forgiven himself had he bitten someone, even if it was Severus 
Snape.

SB: Hmm. Yeah, I guess you're right. I didn't think about how Lupin 
would feel. Should have, though, but what do you know when you're 
sixteen?

BW: Not much. But I also sent James to protect you, Siri. I don't 
think you would have been terribly satisfied if you were responsible 
for a fellow student's death. 

SB: I don't know. It WAS Snape...

BW: Siri...

SB: Yeah, ok, you're right, you're right. So tell me, Snape's not 
messing with Harry, is he?

BW: Harry can take care of himself.

SB: I'll take that as a yes, the nasty sourpuss. All right, then. How 
does Harry manage to sneak into Hogsmeade, with everyone watching out 
for him and Dementors around every corner?

BW: He's got his father's Invisibility Cloak, and I've arranged for 
him to get the Marauder's Map.

SB: The map! I thought Filch had it.

BW:  He did. I had some students steal it back, though, and they'll 
give it to Harry.

SB: The map... Ha! Just make sure that git Snape doesn't get his 
hands on it.  

BW: Why is that? What did you do?

SB: I'll never tell. On second thought, I dare you to let Snape get 
hold of it. That would be brilliant.

BW: What did you do to it, Siri?

SB: I'd rather not say. It "increases the dramatic tension" rather 
nicely, don't you think?

BW: Siri, is it dangerous?

SB: No, it's devastatingly clever. Just put it in his hands and 
you'll see for yourself.

BW: I'll think about it. Now, this is what I need from you...

SB: Just answer me this first: Does Harry thoroughly hate my guts or 
does he simply curse the day I was born?

BW: Harry doesn't know about you yet. But as soon as word gets around 
that you've escaped, he'll eventually find out. Well, he'll hear what 
people tell him. By the time the two of you meet, yes, he will hate 
you rather intensely.

SB: You just don't quit, do you? First you kill off my best friends, 
allow me to be framed for it, and then leave me here to rot in 
Azkaban for... let's see... TWELVE YEARS!! And now you're setting 
little Harry against me. What's next?  A Dementor's kiss?  No, that 
won't do. It can't be much fun torturing a soulless being, right?

BW: I'll forgive your petulance because I have been hard on you. But 
I told you when you signed on that this wasn't going to be a cute 
little fairy tail, didn't I? I seem to recall you were pleased to 
hear that.

SB: (silence)

BW: Now this is the plan...

SB: You're a real piece of work, Rowling. Do you have anything good 
planned for me at all, or should I go kiss a Dementor now and get it 
over with?

BW: Harry will hear the truth from your own lips. And he'll believe 
you. Is that good enough?

SB: He'll believe me?  

BW: He's his father's son. He'll see in you what James did: absolute 
loyalty and a willingness to risk everything to protect the ones he 
loves.

SB: Really? He'll forgive me?

BW: Better than that.  He'll see that you're innocent... 

SB: (silence)

BW: Siri?  What is it, Siri?

SB: Nothing, nothing. I must have swallowed some dust or something. 
So. When Pettigrew is finally in custody, can I go free?

BW: Yes. When the Ministry of Magic has Pettigrew in custody, or 
what's left of him, your name will be cleared.

SB: Can Harry come stay with me, then?

BW: He can if he wants to.  

SB:  All right, then. Let's get started. How do I get out of here?

BW: In a few days, Cornelius Fudge will come to visit you.  Ask for 
the newspaper he's carrying.

SB: Fudge!!! That Dementor-loving git! Now that's what I can't stand 
about you. I'm in here, and he's walking free. Don't you realize he's 
one of those...

At this point the transcript ends abruptly. A note at the end says 
the prisoner was unable to hear the rest of the conversation, because 
the other prisoners began to chant "Az-ka-ban! Az-ka-ban!" while 
banging their tin cups on the jail bars. An investigation into the 
identity and location of the woman has thus far proven fruitless.




From cindysphynx at home.com  Thu Feb 14 05:28:04 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 05:28:04 -0000
Subject: Avery, Fourth Man Comes Up For Air, Timeline (WAS Avery and Ambushes)
In-Reply-To: <a4f73q+ohkc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4fht4+tfsj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35194

Elkins wrote:

> Yay!  Droves flock to the Fourth Man banner!
> 
> Well, er...two do, at any rate.  Can two people be called 
>a "drove?"  

Apparently so.  :-)

However, I can see through my binoculars that all is not well in the 
Fourth Man two-person kayak.  Indeed, it appears that the Fourth Man 
has fallen overboard and is flailing helplessly, unable to haul his 
ample backside to the beach.  All is not lost, however.  I have 
tossed my pricey sunglasses into the sand and kicked off my sandals, 
and I am about to do what I hope is a powerful and impressive 
backstoke out to save the Fourth Man.  With a little support, the 
Fourth Man may be able to tread water until this summer when OoP can 
complete the rescue.

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

Elkins again:

> > "Avery-Nott-Crabbe-Goyle-"
> 
> > "You are merely repeating the names of those who were cleared of 
> > being Death Eaters thirteen years ago," said Fudge angrily. "You 
> > could have found those names in old reports of the trials!" 
> 

<snip heroic effort by Elkins to save the Fourth Man using the rather 
slippery "Double Worm Theory" that Avery wormed his way out of 
trouble not once but twice> 

I think we can dismiss Fudge's comment and we need not conclude that 
Avery was "acquitted" 13 years ago as Fudge says.  Not because Fudge 
is lying.  Or stupid.  Or remembering incorrectly.  No, we can 
dismiss Fudge's remark for a completely different reason.

The reason that we needn't put much stock in Fudge's statement has to 
do with JKR.  Um, how can I put this delicately?  Er, JKR, bless her, 
wouldn't know an acquittal if it bit her in the behind.  Trial, 
acquittal, conviction, sentencing, pardon, plea bargain -- it's all 
the same to her.  

Canon, you ask?  JKR has Harry refer to the Pensieve scenes as "that 
court thing."  Harry and Dumbledore then call them "trials" when they 
are no such thing.  Bagman seems to be a return of a verdict.  
Karkaroff is a plea bargain.  Crouch Jr. is a sentencing.  

No, I see no reason to think that Fudge is referring to an actual 
acquittal of Avery following a trial.  As I said earlier, Fudge 
probably pardoned Avery, and Fudge uses "acquittal" to mean "got 
off".  The question, then, is whether this happened 13 years ago or 
at some other time.

Elkins again:

> Okay.  So Avery *did* stand trial shortly after the Fall of 
Voldemort 
> (presumably in late autumn or winter of 1981/1982), and he was 
> cleared of the charges against him.
> 
> *This,* then, was presumably when Avery used the Imperius Defense 
to 
> which Sirius refers in "Padfoot Returns."  

Sort of.  Avery was convicted in the Pensieve scene as the Fourth 
Man.  But . . . wait for it . . . Avery *appealed*, you see.  His 
appeal, premised on the Imperius Defense, wound through the pitiful 
excuse for a wizarding legal system for a short period of time, 
languishing on the desk of a rigid, paper-pushing bureaucrat.  In the 
meantime, Crouch Sr.'s popularity is plummeting like a stone.  Crouch 
Sr. is out, Fudge is in, and Avery gets a pardon from his old 
drinking buddy Fudge.  In Fudge's mind (and Fudge is, er, a big 
picture guy), Avery was "acquitted" in late 1981 or very early 1982 --
roughly 13 years ago.

For this to work, though, we have to make the timeline add up.  
Although Elkins has made substantial headway in pushing Avery's 
Imperius Defense farther into the future (correct me if I'm wrong 
there, Elkins), I think we are moving in the wrong direction.  

<Cindy wrestles the kayak oar from Elkins and paddles furiously in 
the opposite direction>

For that, I have to go back to a timeline theory I used in 
the "Neville Has A Reverse Memory Charm" dialogue (which apparently 
Elkins has decided to spurn in favor of the wholly 
implausible "Neville Has A Memory Charm" theory -- don't get me 
started).

 <Cindy shamelessly copies portion of previous post because she 
doesn't have the energy she did when she was a well-preserved 35>

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

Here's a quick rundown on the canon evidence that the Lestranges were 
apprehended soon after Voldemort fell, not years later:
 
In Padfoot Returns, Sirius tells us about the circumstances under 
which Barty Crouch Jr. is brought to Azkaban and everything going on 
at the time.  He says:
 
"When Voldemort disappeared, it looked like only a matter of time 
until Crouch got the top job.  But then something rather unfortunate 
happened. <snip> Crouch's own son was caught with a group of Death 
Eaters who'd managed to talk their way out of Azkaban.  Apparently 
they were trying to find Voldemort and return him to power.  <snip> 
I saw the Dementors bringing him in. <snip> He can't have been more 
than nineteen."
 
The Lexicon list Barty Crouch Jr.'s birthday as 1962.  So if he is 
19 when he goes to Azkaban, that would be 1981.  As Fourth Man Avery 
would have been arrested at the same time as young Crouch, this is 
also in 1981.
 
Also, I think JKR writes the dialogue for Sirius expressly to 
support this timeline.  When a person estimates someone's age, they 
probably wouldn't use an expression like "He can't have been more 
than 19." Most people would pick a round number, like 20, or they'd 
say "19 or 20".  The use of 19 is probably to make the timeline work 
perfectly.  
 
Amy Z once pointed out that Sirius was at school with Crouch Jr., a 
few years ahead of him.  So Sirius might be able to guess not only 
based on his appearance but also just remembering Crouch Jr. 
from their Hogwarts days.
 
*************

So . . . Crouch was sent to prison right after the Longbottoms were 
tortured in 1981 (on the strength of Neville's Reverse Memory Charm 
testimony, mind), and he was pardoned when Fudge became Minister of 
Magic shortly thereafter.  Avery is a Lucky Man.  He has a first-rate 
lawyer and a lobbyist on staff.

See, Elkins, if you abandon this Neville Memory Charm idea, you can 
have both a Reverse Memory Charm and a Fourth Man.  That, my friend, 
is a deal.

*************
 
Elkins wrote:

> Cindy wants Avery to have been the head of the Department of Magical
> Catastrophies (even at the tender age of twenty-one), so that she 
can
> have him responsible for tampering with evidence in the Sirius Black
> case and for recovering Voldemort's wand from the rubble at Godric's
> Hollow.  She also wants him to have been given this position back 
> after his release from Azkaban and sees no problem with the notion
> that Sirius would have failed to mention this, . . . 

Uh, yeah, well, so, yes, you do make a good point.  There is one 
little factoid to keep in mind, though.  When Sirius is describing 
Avery in "Padfoot Returns," he is not warning Harry to watch out for 
anything.  Sirius is giving a history lesson.  So why does he say 
Avery is still at large?  Because Sirius doesn't know where Avery 
is.  Under your most recent counteroffer, you propose that Avery can 
be a junior minister like Fudge.  How would Sirius know where Avery 
was?  "At large" means "out there", and Avery is that, and that is 
all Sirius knows.

Elkins again:

> But since you've been so nice about swallowing down my Fourth Man 
> theory, I'll tell you what I'm gonna do for you here: I'll give you 
> Avery in the DMC.  Okay?  Avery *was* in the DMC.  He wasn't the 
> Department *Head,* mind, but he was a junior minister in the 
> department, just like Fudge.  He was the chief investigator 
assigned 
> to the muggle-blasting site, where he confiscated Sirius Black's 
wand 
> (so that it couldn't be Priori Incantatem'd) and tampered with a 
bit 
> of the evidence to make Sirius' guilt seem all that much more 
> incontrovertible.

*Swallowed* the Fourth Man theory?  I darn near gave it Mouth-to-
Mouth Resuscitation!  OK, you have yourself a deal.  Now move over, 
because cramming three people into a two-person kayak is a bit tight.

Elkins again:

> But I'm not willing to give you Avery-Retrieved-Voldemort's-Wand-
From-
> Godric's-Hollow as well, because that would run completely counter 
to 
> the entire "Avery has avoided the other DEs like the plague ever 
> since his release from Azkaban" aspect of the Fourth Man theory, 
> which is central.  
> 
> Pettigrew can have Voldemort's wand all to himself. <snerk>

Eh, I'm flexible here, but Avery could have Voldemort's wand without 
it presenting any problems for Fourth Man.  Avery, as you say, has 
lost his zest for life as a DE.  This happens as soon as he is sure 
Voldemort is gone.  So Avery obtained Voldemort's wand at Godric's 
Hollow and tampered with Sirius' wand.  But as soon as he knew 
Voldemort was really, really dead, he gave the wand to someone.  It 
was "hot," and Avery didn't want it.  

I just can't think of who Avery might have given it to.

Cindy (who is too tired to even *think* about sorting out the ambush 
and the cells, and who doesn't know where Elkins gets the energy)




From Whirdy at aol.com  Thu Feb 14 06:40:31 2002
From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:40:31 EST
Subject: Over Fry, Over Dale, As they read us Potter's tale!
Message-ID: <17c.38ee12c.299cb5df@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35195

Having invested in both the Dale and the Fry renditions I have decided to 
undertake listening to Dale read SS while I scan along with PS and listening 
to Fry read PS while I scan SS and so on for the rest of the Potterverse.

Only then will I be sure that I have found all of the Englican/Amerish 
substitutions that some well meaning but deluded editors believed necessary.

I would suggest, however, that whichever version one might chose to buy, the 
listener will not be disappointed.  He or she will surely learn something 
that was missed in their own reading and gain some enjoyment and insight.

In this day of the TV and instant messages one forgets the power, mystery and 
thrill of hearing a story teller weave magic with the human voice.  Now if 
only we were at the edge of the Forbidden Forest sitting toasting 
marshmallows in that magic blue fire  and listening . . .

whirdy




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




From theennead at attbi.com  Thu Feb 14 08:13:45 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 08:13:45 -0000
Subject: Snape & the DEs, Reprise (With Bits of Where's The Canon?)
In-Reply-To: <BF287CBB-1EE4-11D6-9B09-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a4frjq+34jo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35196

Much Snapestuff here.  Snape and Reader Expectation.  Snape and 
Subversion.  Snape and his Old Gang.  Snape and House Slytherin.  
Snape and the Malfoys.  Snape's Sudden Movement.  Snape Snape Snape 
Snape Snape.

No George here, though.  George is getting a post of his very own.

And also, a mention of Avery.  But only a very brief one, and at the 
very end.

-------------

Porphyria wrote:

> Moving on once again, to the discussion of Snape as standing in 
> possible opposition to the series' problematic stances of 'all 
> Slyth are evil' and the limits of individual choice. . . .Well, for 
> one thing I think you're setting up a false opposition between 
> Snape and the rest of the text. 

Well, obviously Snape is a *part* of the text, and a very important 
part at that.  And I agree with you that that an important aspect of 
his literary function in the novels *is* to serve a "subversive" 
function: not subversive in the sense of undermining authorial 
intent, but subversive in the sense of undermining genre conventions 
and the reader's own expectations of the text.  In other words, Snape 
may be a spy, but he is *Rowling's* spy. 

I also agree with you that the series is becoming increasingly 
morally complex as it progresses, and that Rowling does enjoy playing 
some rather sophisticated games with reader expectation and 
misdirection.  

But as I've said on many other occasions, I still don't altogether 
trust Rowling as an author, and I'm not altogether certain that I 
will like where she's really going with the text.  This causes 
anxiety -- but that is inevitable in any serialized work.  As Eileen 
wrote, in a post some days ago: "Trust no author until she is 
finished."


One thing that I do feel compelled to point out here, though, is that 
my original reading of Snape's relationship with his old gang was in 
no way *intentionally* subversive.  It was not something that I 
thought about at all, honestly.  It was simply how I quite naturally 
and instinctively read GoF.  It was only once I discovered this 
community that I came to realize that my instinctive reading had 
apparently also been a highly idiosyncratic one -- and then to begin 
to wonder *why.*

I think that a good part of the reason that my reading *was* so 
instinctive was because Snape *is* Rowling's spy: as you point out, 
she uses him quite often as a tool of reader misdirection.

> I also think she leaves a lot of hints that might seriously tempt 
> the reader to imagine him as being different than what he seems, 
> and as I said this is a series where heavy reader speculation is 
> consciously encouraged by the structure of the narrative. 

Indeed.  And because of that, my response to, say, Sirius mentioning 
Snape's old Slytherin gang was initial shock ("Snape had 
*friends?*"), followed immediately by acceptance ("Well...okay. And 
really, why on earth *shouldn't* he have had people he hung out with 
while at school?").  The fact that Rowling does so often use the 
character to shatter misconceptions made it a quite natural reading 
for me.  And the successive series of revelations about the fates of 
the members of that little group, each of them worse (from Snape's 
perspective, anyway) than the last -- Rosier wasn't just killed
by "Aurors," he was killed by *Moody*. . .Snape was acting as 
Dumbledore's spy, so probably his information was what *got* Rosier 
killed by Moody. . .the Lestranges are in Azkaban for attacking 
*Neville's* parents. . . .Avery's still alive and well and almost 
certain to be filling in some secondary henchman villain duty in the 
next volume. . . .and the scary Lestranges are likely to get busted 
out of Azkaban as well. . .

<shrug>  It was just my automatic response to read this as emotionally
relevant material.  And when I discovered that others had not done so,
I was puzzled -- and frankly startled -- and very interested to find
out *why.*

Musings over why I might have read the text so differently than others
did, and what this might say about the philosophical underpinnings of 
our readings, and all of that sort of thing came later.

But it interests me in part because it *does* touch on the extent to 
which I feel that I can "trust" the Author.  Obviously my own reading 
has emotional resonance for me: if it didn't, then I doubt that I 
would have read the story in the way that I did.  My sense of 
disappointment at the notion that because my interpretation was so 
unusual, it was therefore likely to be running contrary to Authorial 
Intent -- to be, in fact, fairly subversive -- was a disappointment 
with the author.  My sense of disappointment that even though fan 
readings are so very often subversive, my interpretation was 
apparently nonetheless *still* a very unpopular reading of the text --
that was a disappointment with...well, I'm not quite sure with whom, 
honestly.  With the author again?  Or with the fans?  With the world 
as a whole?  Or perhaps simply with myself, for being so goddamned 
*weird?*

I honestly don't know.  It's hard to say.  But the discussion here 
has made me feel a good deal better about it -- it may have been a 
minority reading, but it was not, at least, an utterly *unique* 
reading -- and I'm very much appreciating the opportunity to begin to 
understand why the more popular reading might also be one that people 
would consciously choose to favor.


> Well, he seems to be a character fraught with internal and external 
> contradictions. He has this 'neither fish nor fowl' quality which 
> IMHO is a little subversive in itself. So in some cases the impulse 
> to imagine his peers as being securely black is an effort to 
> highlight this perverse, 'neither' quality of his...

So in other words, we don't want to blacken the black to make Snape 
seem white in comparison, but merely to highlight his grey?

That does make sense to me, on an intellectual level.  It doesn't 
happen to work for me emotionally or viscerally -- JKR's Whites are 
themselves quite grey, so for the blacks to be blacker than black 
just feels...oh, unbalanced somehow, in a way that is perhaps far 
more aesthetic than philosophical, and in a way which does absolutely 
nothing for me *personally* in terms of appreciating Snape's Greyness 
or his Indeterminacy -- but I can understand how that could work 
differently for other people.

> ...and the temptation to imagine him as never *quite* fitting in 
> with them can be read as an extension of his uncategorizable 
> quality. . . . But I'm saying his function as a character in the 
> text is one which is profoundly indeterminate, and what we see of 
> his personality mimics this motif. Hence the impulse to preserve 
> this theme in speculating his backstory.

Which I certainly agree with.  I think that here, though, we're 
touching on some serious differences in precisely *how,* as readers, 
we interpreted that indeterminate quality in the first place.

> So what we could imagine instead is a character whose 'nature' was 
> always inconsistent and prone to conflicting impulses, someone who 
> was never quite sure where he stood, and it took a lot of angst to 
> finally make a decision.

Which works as a reading, no doubt about it.  It just somehow doesn't 
quite work for me.

A while back, Eloise wrote, on one of the many George threads: 

> Of course, I also happen to believe he comes from a family of dark 
> wizards, explaining all those curses he knew, and that though he's 
> intellectually a *good* guy, many of his instincts lead him toward 
> the dark side leading to a lot of tension.

And I think that that tension, that contrast between Snape's 
instincts and his intellect, has always been central to how I've read 
the character.  I do not, for example, tend to see Snape as a person 
struggling with conflicting impulses, precisely.  Rather, I tend to 
see him as someone whose *impulses* all lead him in one unerring 
direction -- but in a direction that he has chosen to reject on 
abstract and purely philosophical grounds.  In other words, I see him 
as a Dark Wizard.  In instinct.  In impulse.  In inclination.  To 
some extent, perhaps even in essence.  But by choosing not to act on 
those instincts and inclinations and tastes and desires, he manages 
to be something slightly different.  Grey.  Neither fish nor fowl, as 
you wrote, but neither fish nor fowl in a slightly different *way,* I 
think, than many others have read him.

The suggestion that Snape left the DEs because when it came right 
down to it, he lacked a taste for torture or murder, for example, has 
always left me a bit cold because in my reading of Snape, of *course* 
he has a taste for it.  A taste for it is *exactly* what he's got.  
His taste for it...well, that's sort of his problem, isn't it?

It comes to the same thing, in many ways.  But it leads to a lot of 
different assumptions.  I, for example, assume that of *course* Snape 
would enjoy the company of the sort of people who become Death Eaters 
(at least, to whatever extent he enjoys company at all).  They would 
share his tastes, and his inclinations, and his aesthetics, and his 
interests, and probably his sense of humor as well.  They wouldn't 
share his *principles,* of course, which is the sticking point, but 
on grounds of pure compatability, they would be far better
companionship for him than the vast majority of the people who *do* 
share his principles.

> I can only counter to say that I think the text highlights Snape's 
> conflict and indeterminacy in a particular way and wants the reader 
> to sympathize with it 

Well, I would agree...except that I'm beginning to suspect that 
the 'particular way' in which the text seems to highlight Snape's 
conflict and indeterminacy to *me* is perhaps not the "particular 
way" it does to others -- or even, perhaps, the "particular way" that
the author intended.

However, as we've managed to make it through four novels so far 
without the author doing anything that has opposed my reading in the 
slightest -- thus enabling me to maintain it both cheerfully and 
obliviously throughout -- I suppose that I shouldn't let that 
suspicion worry me too much.  Either something will eventually happen 
that will disappoint me terribly and then force me to revise my 
reading...or it won't.  Either way, there's not much I can do about
it.

> (yes, I really feel he's written as sympathetic). 

Well, of course he is!  Part of it, admittedly, *is* that Clever 
Villain/Sympathy For the Devil appeal.  You know, there's a Type 
here: the snarling drama queen in the black cape who gets all of the 
really funny cruel dry lines.  Everyone *always* likes that guy, and 
Snape shares a lot of his qualities.  And as a special bonus, he's 
not even really a villain, you don't have to feel the slightest bit
guilty for liking him so much.

I mean, really.  What sort of heartless monster *wouldn't* sympathize 
with Snape at the end of PoA, when he disintegrates utterly into his 
raving "Curses, Foiled Again, and Damn You, You Meddling Kids" 
hysteria?  You'd just have to be made of *stone,* wouldn't you?
 
And of course there's the angst factor.  Loads of angst.

> And Mrs. Lestrange *is* sexy, so you can creep out from behind that 
> coffee cup. ;-)

For a woman with no name -- not even a maiden name, for heaven's 
sakes! -- and only one line of dialogue, she certainly is Dead Sexy.  
I kind of want to *be* her, when I grow up.

Oh.  Right.  I'm already middle-aged, according to Cindy.  
Well...never mind, then.  I guess it's too late.


Re: Snape's Favoritism of the Slytherins

I wrote:

> I think he favors them primarily because Slytherin is his House, and
> because Snape is loyal to House Slytherin in spite of the fact that
> an appalling number of its Old Boys went bad during the last big
> wizarding war.

Porphyria wrote:

> It just seems to me that his loyalty to Dumbledore probably 
> outweighs his loyalty to his house, and this is significant when 
> the two are at odds. 

Loyalty to Dumbledore in no way precludes loyalty to House 
Slytherin.  In fact, it demands it.  Snape is the Head of House 
Slytherin; that is a very important part of his job at Hogwarts.  And 
Snape's devotion to his job, to its duties and its responsibilities, 
is an enormous aspect of his loyalty to Dumbledore.  Were he not 
loyal to his House, then that really *would* be a violation of trust, 
and a fairly serious one at that.  

I think we may have some very serious disagreement here, though, over 
the issue of to what extent House Slytherin is separable from 
Voldemort and his agenda, or for that matter, from Dark Wizardry in 
general.  

I see a clear distinction between House Slytherin, one of the four 
Houses of all Wizarding Britain, with a thousand-year-old tradition 
whose values include ambition, cunning, shrewdness, ends-over-means, 
resourcefulness, and a willingness to break rules (as well as purity 
of blood and a deep suspicion and fear of the Muggle world); and 
House Slytherin in its current political state, which would seem to 
have granted purity of blood primacy over many of its other values 
and chosen to express its hostility towards the Muggle world 
through active and violent means.

I have no difficulty at all in imagining someone feeling a loyalty to 
the House -- its traditions, its historical importance, its 
contributions to the magical world, the vast majority of its values 
(I think that Snape most certainly *does* value ambition, cunning, 
shrewdness and resourcefulness; and as someone who has worked as a 
spy, he surely cannot harbor too many objections to the idea of 
privileging the ends over the means!), and even the memory of
its founder (Salazar presumably contributed *something* of value to 
the British Wizarding tradition), while simultaneously rejecting one 
or two of its tenets (I agree with you that Snape doesn't seem to be 
much of a purebloodist these days, anyway) and working to fight 
against a charismatic Dark Wizard who favors recruitment from within 
its ranks.

Going back to a few of the things you were saying earlier about JKR's 
taste for misdirection, I really do believe that Slytherin=Evil is a 
bit of a red herring in the books.  When Dumbledore speaks to Harry 
about his Sorting at the end of CoS, I read a good deal of respect in 
his tone when he speaks of House Slytherin -- and Dumbledore is a 
Gryffindor, someone who has taken an unusually vocal stance against 
Salazar Slytherin's pureblood beliefs, *and* someone who spent many 
years fighting against a Slytherin Dark Wizard and his (for the most 
part) Slytherin followers.  Hell, if Dumbledore can manage to find 
something to respect in the House as an institution, then I'm willing
to accept that there's something there worthy of respect.

I would also point out that even Hagrid, as prone as he is to 
generalizations and hasty judgements, and as valid a personal reason 
as he has to dislike House Slytherin, does not tell Harry "Slytherin 
is the House of Dark Wizards."  What he says (incorrectly, as it 
turns out) is: "Never a wizard went bad who wasn't in Slytherin."  As 
biased as Hagrid is, and as biased as he has reason to be, that is 
how he phrases it -- and to my mind, that's significant.  Wizards
from House Slytherin *go* bad.  They *turn* to Darkness.  Slytherin 
isn't the House of Darkness; Darkness corrupts those of House 
Slytherin.

That's canon.  It's also canon, though, that all of the Slyths we 
ever see are deeply unpleasant individuals, and that Snape is the 
only one of them we know of who has fought against Dark Wizardry.  If 
there are Slyth grads who are Aurors, or who played important roles 
in the last war against Voldemort, then we've never heard of them.  
(Although I remain convinced, on the basis of no actual canonical 
evidence, that the Crouches, both Sr and Jr, were Slyths.  Given 
Sirius' denunciation of Crouch Sr's performance in his role as a 
battler of Darkness, however, this supposition is still hardly a 
rousing defense of the House as a whole...)

I don't know quite what to make of this, honestly.  My hope is that 
it's a case of reader misdirection and will be dealt with in later 
books.  My fear is that it's Just Something That The Author Didn't 
Think Through Very Carefully.  I'm willing to wait to find out which 
it might be, but in the meantime, I'm reading to give the author the 
benefit of the doubt.

I wrote:

> As for Draco, I do think that Snape genuinely likes him -- or at the
> very least strongly identifies with him.  

Porphyria wrote:

> Given that Draco is a whiny, privileged kid, I think Snape's habit 
> of letting him get away with everything is really a little fishy. 

It's very difficult for us to have any idea what Snape lets Draco get
away with, really.  He lets him get away with just about anything that
might annoy or discomfit Harry or the Gryffindors, certainly.  But 
other than that, it's really impossible to say.  Has he cracked down 
on Draco's bullying within House Slytherin (assuming, that is, that 
Draco does bully the younger Slyth kids, which I'm sure that he does,
if he's allowed to get away with it)?  Is he as unjust in his 
administration of discipline on his own students when House 
Gryffindor *isn't* involved?  There's just no way to know.  That 
issue's a black box.

> Snape seems like the kind of guy who takes pride in his talent and 
> works hard at it; it's hard for me to see how he'd approve of 
> someone who slides along by malingering, falling back on family 
> prestige and generally squirming out from under responsibility. 

Snape has been known to play a few very slimy games with 
responsibility and power himself.  He is talented, and he is proud, 
and he is obviously more than capable of hard work.  But he is also a 
Slytherin.

Draco's malingering was to the benefit of the House in their efforts 
to win the Quiddich cup, and I suspect that Snape approved 
wholeheartedly of it.  And while Draco does try to coast on his 
family name whenever he thinks he can get away with it, we've never 
seen evidence that he slacks off in Snape's Potions class.  

I quite agree with you that Snape would not take kindly to anyone 
slacking off in his Potions class.

> Snape appears to be giving Hermione better marks. If he really 
> liked Draco as much as he seems to, why wouldn't he find some slimy 
> reason to deduct points from Hermione's exam and add a few special 
> bonus points to Draco's? 

Snape does favor the Slyths, but I mean, *really,* Porphyria!  There 
are *limits!*

He doesn't mess with the marks for exactly the same reason that he 
wouldn't take kindly to anyone slacking off in his Potions class.


> Or better yet, if he really really cares about Draco, why aren't 
> there signs that he's mentoring him in some really useful way? Does 
> he even teach him better techniques for chopping ginger root? 

Well, for starters, I think that the man that you're tilting at here 
gets more bursting with straw with each new paragraph.  ;-)

If you'll look above, what I actually said was *not* that I thought 
that Snape "really liked Draco as much as he seems to," and most 
*certainly* not that he "really really cares about Draco."  (And just 
for the record, I don't think that Snape gives Draco big loving hugs 
or tucks him into bed at night, either.)

I said that I thought that he does "genuinely like him -- or at the 
very least identify with him."  That's not at all the same thing.  

But really, if Snape *had* been, say, teaching Draco better techniques
for chopping ginger root, then what sort of signs would you really 
expect to see of that in the text?  Harry certainly wouldn't know 
about it.  It wouldn't be likely to come up anywhere in the narration.

I don't really think that Snape *is* giving Draco private ginger-
slicing lessons, mind.  But if he were, we'd never hear about it.

And Snape's prompting of Draco's Serpensortia spell in the duelling 
club scene of CoS can be read as evidence that he *has* given the boy 
a bit of tutoring on the side -- although in curses, rather than in
Potions.  There would seem to be far more to learning a spell then 
just happening to know the proper incantation: you also have
to know the proper wand movements, and in almost all cases, do at
least a bit of practice.  We've never seen even Hermione cast a charm 
on the basis of merely being told the appropriate incantation.  
Snape's whisper in Draco's ear there was a *prompt:* unless we are to 
believe that Draco is preternaturally talented with spellwork (which 
I don't for an instant believe), then he must have already learned 
that particular spell.  And Snape must have known that he knew it.  

So how did he know?  Could have been an inspired guess, I suppose, 
based on what he knows about Draco's inclinations and the Malfoy 
family as a whole.  Could have been because he'd seen Draco cast
it before -- in the Slytherin common room, say, on a fellow student.  
Or it could be because he had taught it to him himself.  I don't 
consider the last possibility all that unlikely, myself.


> It seems more to me that what Snape does is curry Draco's favor in 
> a way that, if Draco were smarter, he'd hold with some suspicion.

Heh.  Well, if Draco were smarter, he wouldn't be Draco.  Yes, of 
course Snape smarms shamelessly up to Lucius Malfoy's son.  It's in 
his best interests to do so, on a number of different levels.  But 
that doesn't mean that he doesn't genuinely like the kid, or that he 
doesn't favor his own students primarily out of...well, out of good 
old-fashioned favoritism.

> As for Snape's Sudden Movement (which is beginning to remind me far
> too much of That Goddamned Gleam In Dumbledore's Eye)...

Um, does this mean you're already tired of discussing it? Uh oh...

Nah.  I'm happy to talk about it.  I don't know quite where that up
there came from -- some weird fit of irritability, I guess.  Mainly
it reminds me of the infamous Gleam because it is a one sentence line 
that prompts so many people to say: "Hey, did anyone else notice that 
sudden movement that Snape made when..."

<I suggested that Snape's Sudden Movement might have been a 
reflection of his desire to stop Harry from uttering Malfoy's name in 
front of Fudge, because he knew that the instant Fudge heard Malfoy 
implicated, he would refuse to believe a word of it>

> I think your theory is plausible, but I can't help but imagine that 
> the Movement foreshadows something further in the future than 
> Fudge's reaction. 

It might do, and I certainly hope you're right, because it's far more
interesting that way.  But I think it equally possible that it 
was...well, just a moment of characterization, rather than a Great 
Big Foreshadow.

> I mean, given that his gesture is a little mysterious and all 
> (the wording "sudden movement" is deliberately vague)..., 

It is vague, which was the reason that I didn't even try to defend
my objection to the idea that it was a gesture of fury, rather than 
one of alarm or dismay or warning.  There's really not much there to 
go on.  

> ...shouldn't it indicate more than what is depicted a few minutes 
> later in this very scene?

You think?  Well...maybe.  I think that sometimes a Sudden Movement 
is just a Sudden Movement, but as I said, I hope that you're right, 
because I too am getting very antsy to find out what the deal is 
between Snape and Lucius Malfoy.

> My take on this: I think Snape and Lucius are headed for a day of 
> reckoning. The text keeps hinting at something along these lines. 

You know, this is the thing that I'm *most* curious about?  I am, as 
a general rule, not at all an impatient or a curious person.  In 
fact, I drive my friends absolutely crazy sometimes with my lack of 
those particular character traits.  I happily leave gifts all wrapped 
up until it's time to open them and have never once seen the point in 
shaking boxes or squinting too hard at their shapes; I receive 
mysterious parcels and then forget to look inside them until my 
housemates are overcome with curiosity and start nagging me to do so; 
I endure cliff-hangers with an aplomb that absolutely *infuriates* 
many of my aquaintances.  The fact that Rowling's taking a long
time with Book Five really just doesn't bother me.  She'll get it done
eventually, and I'm not planning on dying anytime soon, so all is 
good, as far as I'm concerned.

But I really *am* getting very itchy to find out what the deal is with
Snape and the Malfoys, and whether Snape's behavior towards Draco is 
going to visibly change in Book Five, and whether we're ever going to 
see Snape and Lucius interacting face to face, and whether...

Well, yes.  I'm...eager.  Impatient, even.  It's a bizarre sensation 
for me.  I'm not used to it.

> There's gotta be plot potential here...so if we agree that Snape's 
> sudden movement is directly in response to the mention of Lucius' 
> name, and that it communicates some sort of strong emotion other 
> than naive surprise that Lucius, shocker of shockers, is still a 
> loyal DE, well...to me this points to some sort of interesting 
> fireworks between the two in a future setting. 

I agree.  And I'm...

Well, damn this emotion!  This is just no fun at all.  I finally 
begin to understand what the rest of you people are always *whining*
about. 

> Well, OK, here's a theory: In CoS, Lucius shows up at Borgin and 
> Burkes to unload some incriminating items that he really doesn't 
> want the MOM to find in his house. Presumably he's got a wide 
> variety of dark arts items stuffed under the drawing room floor, 
> but he specifically mentions *poisons* to Mr. Borgin. So they must 
> be pretty suspicious poisons, you know? Not just garden gnome 
> poison or magical spot remover. 

Sure.  I somehow doubt that there's any wizarding law against having, 
say, arsenic in your possession.

> So that set me to wondering where they originally came from. Hmmm. 
> Do we know anyone who was a DE back in the day who might have had a 
> talent for brewing particularly nasty, illegal, specialized-
> function poisons? 

I like it.  So do you think that "poison" might be a kind of Dark 
Wizard euphemism for forbidden potions?  It does seem to me that the 
nastiest and most illegal of specialized-potions would likely be ones 
that...well, that wouldn't necessarily be designed to *kill.*  Or at 
least not *only* to kill.

> Well, there you go, that's my theory for what Snape's particular DE 
> function used to be. 

Seems reasonable to me.

> Plus that drawing-room chamber is just too intriguing to not come 
> up again. I think these things will tie together: Snape and Lucius 
> have a history which will come back into play in a big hairy way.

Oooooh, I hope so!

Say, do you think it make me a little...bent that I want to know more 
about Dark magic?  We've had the Unforgivables, but they're really 
pretty run-of-the-mill Bad Things To Do To People, aren't they?  I 
mean, what do Seriously Bad Wizards *do?*  Magically, I mean.  What 
constitutes the "Dark Arts?"  

I've always liked to imagine that Divination is *not,* in fact, an 
impractical field of magic at all, but that the only really reliable 
forms of Divination qualify as Dark Arts -- which is the reason that 
Dumbledore gets stuck with poor Trelawney and her once-a-decade 
prophecies.  I like to think that at Durmstrang, say, Divination is a 
highly challenging and intellectual -- and *effective!* -- part of 
the curriculum.

Why do I like to imagine this?  I'm not sure.  Maybe just because
it would make Hermione so very *annoyed* if she knew. ;-)


Regarding Evil-yet-Hyper Avery:

> Well, erm, I think my original reasoning was maybe he's evil and 
> thus perfectly loyal to LV and then his histrionic fit would just 
> be a strange but effective attention-getting device. 

Like an abused child, you mean, who desperately wants Daddy's 
attention, but doesn't particularly care whether that attention 
manifests itself as praise or as punishment?  

Yes.  That works too.

> But you must grant me the merest shred of slack here, because I did 
> post this before your touching defense of him. 

Hey.  Someone needs to obsess about the totally minor characters, 
right?  Otherwise they'd feel left out.

I'm getting a tad bored with Avery, though.  I'm thinking of moving 
on to Justin Finch-Fletchley.  For one thing, I'm pretty sure that 
he's had more than seven words of dialogue.  Also, he's not a bad guy 
(yet), and I seem to be developing a reputation around here as some 
sort of sick pervert who is only capable of sympathizing with Very 
Bad Men.

> Now I see the error of my ways. 

I'm gratified.  Although you know, if you liked Avery better Evil, 
then you could always go for my new "Fourth Man" theory. 

> However, I'm still trying to grok the distinction between a 'toady' 
> and a 'nerveless hysteric.' 

A true toady would have thought to thank Voldemort for the Cruciatus.

(Of course, it's possible that Avery really really wanted to, but 
that by the time he'd managed to catch his breath, Voldie had already 
lost interest in him, and there just wasn't any opportunity.  It 
wouldn't have done, after all, to *interrupt.*  Dark Lords just 
*hate* that.)


-- Elkins




From laoisecronin at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 14 10:05:24 2002
From: laoisecronin at yahoo.com (laoisecronin)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:05:24 -0000
Subject: Potter's deathday/ graves
In-Reply-To: <a4ev17+qdb1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4g254+48g0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35197

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hpfan04" <k_wayment at h...> wrote:
> i think it is on the 5th october, bonfire night(i could be very 
very wrong).I always thought it was strange that harry never 
mentioned his parents on the anniversary of their death. Maybe a new 
place in the next books will be their graves(would they have any?? 
could wizard burial traditions be different).Or the last scene of 
book 7 could take place there, a kind of closure?
>    I had a question, as it is obvious, about when James and 
> Lily Potter's death day was. I seem to remember something about it 
> being October the thrity-first, but I can't seem to find where it 
> said that. Do we really not know and I've created something in my 
> imagination?
>   Can someone point me in the right direction?
>   ~Kyli  who feels very foolish right now, can't seem to remeber 
> anything, and asks really dumb questions because everybody else 
> thought of all the intellectual questions and before she joined the 
> group! (Okay, I'm done now ;))




From ffionmiles at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 14 10:58:45 2002
From: ffionmiles at hotmail.com (ffimiles)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:58:45 -0000
Subject: Potter's deathday
In-Reply-To: <a4ev17+qdb1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4g595+qs2u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35198

James and Lily did die on Hallow'ene - I can't think exactly where it 
says this, but somewhere in the first chapter - I think when the 
Dursleys are listening to the news - I'm sure the enws reader says 
something about it being Hallow'ene, and the weather man [talking 
about sparks in the sky] says that Bon fire night isn't until next 
week - and for non-UK, Bon Fire night [we like to emember a Guy 
Falks, a bloke who tried to blow up the Houses of parliament - and 
failed - make of that what you will!!!] is celebrated on 5th 
Noveber.  
Hope this helps!
Ffi




From ffionmiles at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 14 11:05:14 2002
From: ffionmiles at hotmail.com (ffimiles)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:05:14 -0000
Subject: Over Fry, Over Dale, As they read us Potter's tale!
In-Reply-To: <17c.38ee12c.299cb5df@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a4g5la+osc7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35199

Whirdy wrote about listening to Fry and Dale reading HP - but what do 
you think of them as readers?  I'm a Fry fan - I heard a little Dale, 
and didn't like the way he characterises the voices so much - I'd 
rather just ahve the book read withe xpression, than for big changes 
in the voice - it interferes less with your own perceptions of what's 
going on.  And anyway, Fry had such a lovely voice!
Ffi




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Thu Feb 14 12:30:40 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 23:30:40 +1100
Subject: Ambushing the ambushees, serpensortia, shelling
Message-ID: <004b01c1b554$5b7a3320$6937c2cb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35200

The peaceful Tabouli (the odd can(n)on on behalf of LOLLIPOPS aside) eyes her recent digests with alarm...

> Eileen, Officially bloodthirsty

Cindy and now Elkins (slathering and bouncing in their chairs):
> Ambushambushambush!!

Elkins (further into her increasingly vicious post):
> YAY!!!!!!!!!!!  Bloody ambush!  Bloody ambush!  Bloody ambush!


The three HPFGU warmongers bounce menacingly in their chairs, chanting their battle slogan, plotting murder and mayhem in the Potterverse.  Their eyes are wild, their mouths are frothing, their chants grow ever more menacing, and the future of the Potterverse slides behind a dark cloud.  Fortunately for the Potterverse, heroic Captain Tabouli espies their sinister festivities through her ship's telescope, and makes her stealthy way inland to the Owlery, in the hope of saving Wizardkind.   A mere hour later she has managed to convince Pigwidgeon, Errol and Hedwig to sacrifice their lives and feathers for the cause, and is swiftly, silently closing in on the savage sofa springers, ready to smother and bind them all in...

F.E.A.T.H.E.R.B.O.A.S.!  (Foaming Enthusiasts of Ambush, Torture, and Hostility, Embracing Really Bloodthirsty Operations And Savagery))

(as she leaps from her hiding place swinging her feathered lasso, it fleetingly occurs to Tabouli that if Pigwidgeon and Hedwig ever warmed to one another they could call each other Pig and Wig...)

Elkins:
> So in other words, we don't want to blacken the black to make Snape 
seem white in comparison, but merely to highlight his grey?

Poor ol' Severus, eh?  All out on-list dissection is enough to turn anyone grey (Tabouli suppressed a mental image of Filch putting lavender highlights in Snape's greying hair)

Elkins:
> And Snape's prompting of Draco's Serpensortia spell in the duelling 
club scene of CoS can be read as evidence that he *has* given the boy 
a bit of tutoring on the side<

Now this is something that has always intrigued me.  What made Snape suggest that particular spell?  House pride, because it's a serpentine Slytherin speciality?  I mean, presumably he was relishing the thought of deliberately and publicly putting Harry in mortal danger, but was there any more to it?  And when Harry turns out to be a Parselmouth, Snape doesn't seem surprised... he looks "shrewd and calculating".  Does Snape know something we don't?  (actually, he knows a helluva lot we would dearly like to know)  Did he pick that spell in order because he wanted to test a theory he had about Harry, or Voldemort, or the failed curse?

<Elkins grins and tosses a seashell lazily -- if with no real malice -
- out to sea in the general direction of the Good Ship 
L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S.>

(the eagle eyes of the LOLLIPOPS crew members on watch immediately spot this disrespectful gesture, and lazily extend the daintiest of can(n)ons, known affectionately as the Golden Peashooter.  With an elegant puff of pink smoke, a pearl sized can(n)onball blows Elkins' seashell into fragments.  The crew grin, and make mental notes to tell the Captain after her return from saving the world from the Federation of FEATHERBOAS.)

Tabouli.


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




From lucy at luphen.co.uk  Thu Feb 14 13:09:47 2002
From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:09:47 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Prefects
References: <15b.8edb175.299c4969@aol.com>
Message-ID: <013201c1b558$e105fca0$b0ae1e3e@stephen>

No: HPFGUIDX 35201

>chelsea said:

>I agree with you - it's already been determined that Hermione is 
exceptionally smart, and could quite easily be a prodigy. Some have said that 
a Perfect/Head Boy or Girl is not only chosen on academic abilities, but also 
on bravery, and quick thinking. Hermione embodies all of these qualities, 
proving time and again that she is brilliant not only in school, but in the 
real world. I believe without a doubt that she will become a Perfect, and 
eventually, Head Girl.


I agree that Hermione will probably be a Prefect, but quick thinking in the real world?? 'Are you a witch or aren't you?' springs to mind. I also seem to remember her doing a lot of cowering in the Shrieking Shack! But as far as bravery and intelligence go, definitely she should be one. Perhaps she and Ron will be made Prefects, and Harry won't as it will only bring more unwanted attention onto him, and then we can have some nice conflicts with him being left out for a change!

Lucy the Drifty


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




From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Thu Feb 14 13:17:54 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:17:54 -0000
Subject: Prefects
In-Reply-To: <013201c1b558$e105fca0$b0ae1e3e@stephen>
Message-ID: <a4gde2+k7ur@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35202

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Lucy Austin" <lucy at l...> wrote:
> I agree that Hermione will probably be a Prefect, but quick thinking in the real 
world?? 'Are you a witch or aren't you?' springs to mind. I also seem to 
remember her doing a lot of cowering in the Shrieking Shack! But as far as 
bravery and intelligence go, definitely she should be one.
> 

Hermione is certainly a scholar, but I'm not at all convinced that she's brilliant or 
even especially intelligent.  She is extremely hard-working and conscientious, 
which is not the same thing.  If Harry or any of the others applied themselves to 
their work just as Hermione does, they'd get the same marks that she does.  In 
my experience, people who are truly brilliant or extremely intelligent get top 
marks despite doing LESS work than their classmates!  




From j.balfour at lmu.ac.uk  Thu Feb 14 13:30:13 2002
From: j.balfour at lmu.ac.uk (booleanfox)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:30:13 -0000
Subject: Something's been bothering me about Sirius
In-Reply-To: <c1.1bd27d09.299c5abe@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a4ge55+10ek1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35203

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Chelsea2162 at a... wrote:
>           I think that Stan's speculation about Sirius was a direct 
link to 
> the Sirius/Peter confrontation. Look at it this way - everyone 
knows 
> Voldemort killed the Potters. Very soon after, Siruis chases Peter 
down,and 
> in front of many spectators, Peterbegins screaming about how Sirius 
betrayed 
> them. Obviously, people are going to say "Ah ha! Sirius betrayed he 
Potters, 
> so he MUST be working for Voldemort,who killed them!" Stan,like 
everyone else 
> in the wizarding world, would have heard of the 
> Potters' murders, and then what happened between Sirius and Peter, 
and would 
> have (like everyone else) assumed that Sirius was high up on 
Voldy's 
> heirarchy. 
>  
> *Chelsea*


Very good points made by everyone here, just wanted to add that 
obviously from the reader's POV we *needed* to have a character 
assassination on Sirius to get worked up and worried about this man 
and whether he was going to catch up with Harry.

Without Stan acting as a mouthpiece for the wizarding world and 
passing on the rumours, we wouldn't have any sense of Sirius's 
importance.

Jules




From pollux46 at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 14 13:51:28 2002
From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:51:28 -0000
Subject: Potter's deathday
In-Reply-To: <a4ev17+qdb1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4gfd0+8m3g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35204

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hpfan04" <k_wayment at h...> wrote:

>   Anyway, I had a question, as it is obvious, about when James and 
> Lily Potter's death day was. I seem to remember something about it 
> being October the thrity-first, but I can't seem to find where it 
> said that. Do we really not know and I've created something in my 
> imagination?
>   Can someone point me in the right direction?
>   ~Kyli  

 The Potters did in fact die on the 31 October. Hagrid tells Harry 
this in PS when he comes to pick him up from the shack-on-the-rock. 
Look it up if you like: It's on page 45 of the UK paperback edition 
in the "Keeper Of The Keys" chapter.

Charis Julia.




From laoisecronin at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 14 14:07:45 2002
From: laoisecronin at yahoo.com (laoisecronin)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:07:45 -0000
Subject: Potter's deathday/ graves
In-Reply-To: <a4g254+48g0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4ggbh+r66p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35205

 I meant to say 5th of november not october,( thats what happens when 
you write a post at 10 when you also have a lecture to get to at 10)
The news reader says it was too early for bonfire night which wasn't 
until tomorrow, or next week( i can't remember, i'll have to head to 
the college library and check now!). So i was wrong anyway about the 
5th november , but i think it is sometime between halloween and the 
5th. Maybe the fidelius charm was cast on halloween because that's a 
more powerful time to perform magic. But because peter was the secret 
keeper and betrayed them it was broken very soon after. I have a 
vauge recollection of someone saying the charm was only cast with 
about a week when thry were killed
       laoise
- In HPforGrownups at y..., "laoisecronin" <laoisecronin at y...> wrote:
> --- :
> > i think it is on the 5th october, bonfire night(i could be very 
> very wrong).I always thought it was strange that harry never 
> mentioned his parents on the anniversary of their death. Maybe a 
new 
> place in the next books will be their graves(would they have any?? 
> could wizard burial traditions be different).Or the last scene of 
> book 7 could take place there, a kind of closure?
> >    I had a question, as it is obvious, about when James and 
> > Lily Potter's death day was. I seem to remember something about 
it 
> > being October the thrity-first, but I can't seem to find where it 
> > said that. Do we really not know and I've created something in my 
> > imagination?
> >   Can someone point me in the right direction?
> >   ~Kyli  who feels very foolish right now, can't seem to remeber 
> > anything, and asks really dumb questions because everybody else 
> > thought of all the intellectual questions and before she joined 
the 
> > group! (Okay, I'm done now ;))




From pollux46 at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 14 14:19:57 2002
From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:19:57 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Florence,_Bertha_and_C.U.P.I.D.=92S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R._(WAS_C.U.P.I.D.=92S.B.L.U.D.G?=
In-Reply-To: <a4ebh0+tk4m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4gh2d+ib6r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35206

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> 
> What?  No Mercy, Mercy II or Prince?  They can't even get a nod, a 
> wave, a cavalier dismissal?  Ouch!

   My sincere apologies! As I said I'm right in the midst of exams 
and therefore have fallen lamentably behind in my post-readings. 
Though I register their existence, my understanding of Mercy, Mercy 
II and Prince of Lies isn't stable enough to risk mentioning them in 
a post. On Saturday I plan a grand past-post feast! Till then... well 
I shouldn't  be here right now even... But, hey! I'm entitled to a 
half-hour break for goodness sake!-- Charis bashes unruly conscience 
into place... 


Cindy wrote:
> <raises hand>  It was I, Captain, who has forever planted the image 
> of "Poor Pitiful Snape Fondling Pictures Of Lily While Shivering 
> Alone In The Dungeon" in your mind.  Sorry.  It was an ugly job, 
but 
> someone had to do it. :-)

You're forgiven! It's my fault for entering this highly-dangerous-for-
your-mental-health chamber in the first place... Other HP musings of 
mine have been severely damaged before now...
> 
> Charis Julia again (explaining the new theory):
> 
> >No, I think that all in all I shall stick to my initial 
> > explanation of events, a little theory of my own that I have been 
> > nursing for  almost two years now: Severus fell in love with, not 
> > James's, but Sirius's girl!


Cindy again: 
> I would like to serve as tugboat and see if I can help push this 
> Sirius & Snape SHIP theory out into the open water.  ::looks around 
> on deck for canon, finds mostly speculation:: 

 Point taken. But do L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S.& Co have a firmer basis on 
Canon? Uh-oh! Am I showing off my apalling lack of information on 
recent posts again? Don't throttle me guys! I'll refrain from 
expressing opinion on matter till have caught up again. 


Cindy again:
> I've always wondered what was going on in Dumbledore's Pensieve.  A 
> sixteen-year old Bertha Jorkins appears and delivers one line:  "He 
> put a hex on me, Professor Dumbledore, and I was only teasing him, 
> sir, I only said I'd seen him kissing Florence behind the 
greenhouses 
> last Thursday. . . ."  Dumbledore replies, "But why, Bertha, . . . 
> why did you have to follow him in the first place?"
> 
> We know for certain that Sirius (and therefore Snape) was in school 
> with Bertha.  So . . . Florence must have been Snape's girlfriend, 
> Sirius was kissing her and generally putting the moves on her, and 
> Sirius cursed Bertha when he thought she was going to tell Snape.  
> That makes some sense -- what woman dating Snape would say no to a 
> little romp with Sirius?  :-)  Sirius put some sort of curse on 
> Bertha (botched memory charm?), but Bertha later told Snape 
> everything she had seen.  
> 
> This caused Snape to hate Sirius and the Marauders even more.  They 
> have everything, don't they?  Popularity, academic success, 
athletic 
> ability, women, werewolf adventures, good looks, clean hair.  But 
> that's not enough.  Noooo, Sirius has to fool around with Snape's 
> girlfriend, not because Sirius loves her, but just because Sirius 
> can.  Snape won't take Florence back because of her betrayal, but 
he 
> loves her, so he prefers to blame Sirius rather than Florence.
> 
> The Prank probably came after the Kissing incident.  Bertha was "a 
> few years ahead" of the Marauders at Hogwarts.  The Marauders 
didn't 
> learn how to become Animagi until their fifth year, IIRC.  So the 
> Kissing happens, then the Prank comes later.  And the Prank was the 
> Last Straw for Snape. ::shades of Prince:: 
> 
> Note that the theory does not require a belief that Sirius actually 
> put a memory charm on Bertha, although he may have tried to.  

Aha! The idea has merit! Yes! And is completely consistent with 
JKRowling's habit of giving out tit-bits of information about what is 
to come to an unsuspecting reader who thinks she is just spicing up a 
scene! But does Florence have to be Snape's girlfriend and not 
Sirius's? I rather liked the idea of Sirius in love! And would Sirius 
really be likely to go after a girl interested in Snape? AND this 
messes up my Tragic Element! But, hey! If it works for you, I've no 
problem! Your scenario still fits in with the basic 
C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. framework. So hop on board if you feel 
inclined to!


Charis Julia, who thanks her sturdy tugboat!




From laoisecronin at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 14 14:23:22 2002
From: laoisecronin at yahoo.com (laoisecronin)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:23:22 -0000
Subject: Potter's deathday/ more powerful magic on ha;;oween
In-Reply-To: <a4ggbh+r66p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4gh8q+trse@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35207

 O.k. i went and checked and Hagrid does say that it happened on 
halloween. But that doesn't disproove my new theory that wizards 
perform more powerfull magic on halloween. Voldemort chooses that 
night to kill them and Lily is able to use old magic to save Harry 
from a curse that has killed loads of  really powerfull wizard's!
   laoise( who is going to stop replying to her own post's now

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "laoisecronin" <laoisecronin at y...> wrote:
>  I meant to say 5th of november not october,( thats what happens 
when 
> you write a post at 10 when you also have a lecture to get to at 10)
> The news reader says it was too early for bonfire night which 
wasn't 
> until tomorrow, or next week( i can't remember, i'll have to head 
to 
> the college library and check now!). So i was wrong anyway about 
the 
> 5th november , but i think it is sometime between halloween and the 
> 5th. Maybe the fidelius charm was cast on halloween because that's 
a 
> more powerful time to perform magic. But because peter was the 
secret 
> keeper and betrayed them it was broken very soon after. I have a 
> vauge recollection of someone saying the charm was only cast with 
> about a week when thry were killed
>        laoise
> - In HPforGrownups at y..., "laoisecronin" <laoisecronin at y...> wrote:
> > --- :
> > > i think it is on the 5th october, bonfire night(i could be very 
> > very wrong).I always thought it was strange that harry never 
> > mentioned his parents on the anniversary of their death. Maybe a 
> new 
> > place in the next books will be their graves(would they have 
any?? 
> > could wizard burial traditions be different).Or the last scene of 
> > book 7 could take place there, a kind of closure?
> > >    I had a question, as it is obvious, about when James and 
> > > Lily Potter's death day was. I seem to remember something about 
> it 
> > > being October the thrity-first, but I can't seem to find where 
it 
> > > said that. Do we really not know and I've created something in 
my 
> > > imagination?
> > >   Can someone point me in the right direction?
> > >   ~Kyli  who feels very foolish right now, can't seem to 
remeber 
> > > anything, and asks really dumb questions because everybody else 
> > > thought of all the intellectual questions and before she joined 
> the 
> > > group! (Okay, I'm done now ;))




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Feb 14 15:10:56 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:10:56 -0000
Subject: Snape & the DEs, Reprise (With Bits of Where's The Canon?)
In-Reply-To: <a4frjq+34jo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4gk20+jabj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35208

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" <theennead at a...> wrote:

> No George here, though.  George is getting a post of his very own.

Woo-hoo!  George slicks back his hair, wiggles into his tightest
jeans, and practices batting his eyelashes in front of the mirror in
preparation for meeting his very own post.

First, though, there's one point I'd like to address.

I was mostly agreeing with you here:

> I do not, for example, tend to see Snape as a person 
> struggling with conflicting impulses, precisely.  Rather, I tend to 
> see him as someone whose *impulses* all lead him in one unerring 
> direction -- but in a direction that he has chosen to reject on 
> abstract and purely philosophical grounds.  

But then you lost me here:

> The suggestion that Snape left the DEs because when it came right 
> down to it, he lacked a taste for torture or murder, for example,
has 
> always left me a bit cold because in my reading of Snape, of
*course* 
> he has a taste for it.  A taste for it is *exactly* what he's got.  
> His taste for it...well, that's sort of his problem, isn't it?

See, there's cruelty and there's cruelty.  A predilection for reducing
people to quivering globs of jelly through dark threats, deadly
insults and viciously clever mind games is not the same as a
predilection for reducing people to quivering globs of jelly through
pulling their intestines out through their left nostril.  Snape goes
for the first, while Voldy and most of the DEs lean toward the
second.  Most people don't bother to make the distinction though, and
I suspect that young Severus himself didn't bother, which is why he
signed up at the DE membership drive, blithely assuming that torturing
the occassional helpless muggle would be as much fun as goading Sirius
Black into a temper tantrum during breakfast in the Great Hall.  And
when he discovered that it wasn't fun at all, he started thinking
about it ('cause Snape is the sort of guy who thinks about things),
and it's at that point that all those pesky abstract philosophical
grounds began to make themselves known.

And this is the point where Snape becomes someone I respect, see,
because most people in such a situation would drop-kick philosophical
considerations right out the door.  I mean really, how many people
live their day-to-day lives following a philosophical principle?  Most
of us just live following our natural inclinations, and because our
natural inclinations fall within the bounds of what society finds
acceptable, we manage to muddle through somehow.  Snape, OTOH, went
and threw his lot in with people he's naturally inclined to despise,
because he decided that *they were right.  And he risked his life
doing it, too.  I mean... wow.

> 
> It comes to the same thing, in many ways.  But it leads to a lot of 
> different assumptions.  I, for example, assume that of *course*
Snape 
> would enjoy the company of the sort of people who become Death
Eaters 
> (at least, to whatever extent he enjoys company at all).  They would 
> share his tastes, and his inclinations, and his aesthetics, and his 
> interests, and probably his sense of humor as well. 

Oh, absolutely.  I'm sure he enjoyed hanging out with them in the
Slytherin common room, saying snarky things about the Griffyndors and
practicing hexes on the smaller kids.  It's only when push came to
shove that he realized, "hey, these guys are *evil*."

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Feb 14 15:38:18 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:38:18 -0000
Subject: Prefects
In-Reply-To: <a4gde2+k7ur@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4glla+4e4o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35209

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "joanne0012" <Joanne0012 at a...> wrote:

> Hermione is certainly a scholar, but I'm not at all convinced that
she's brilliant or 
> even especially intelligent.  She is extremely hard-working and
conscientious, 
> which is not the same thing.  If Harry or any of the others applied
themselves to 
> their work just as Hermione does, they'd get the same marks that she
does.  In 
> my experience, people who are truly brilliant or extremely
intelligent get top 
> marks despite doing LESS work than their classmates!

But Hermione's intelligence comes through in more than just her
academic work.  She is, for example, the only person who recognized
Lupin's boggart as the moon, and put it together with the other clues
to figure out that he's a werewolf.  She's the one who figured out the
basilisk in CoS, too.  Yes, that required looking things up in books,
but before that she had to put enough clues together to know where to
look.  As for her diligence in studying, I think it's more a sign of
her perfectionism than inability to get great marks without studying. 
Sure, she could coast and settle for a 97 on that Transfiguration
exam, but no, she's gotta get it *all* right, including the extra
credit.


Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From huntleyl at mssm.org  Thu Feb 14 04:33:25 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 23:33:25 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] anti-SHIP: Ginny griping
References: <F314acoKRWR1hdVYunL0001d1fd@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <00b901c1b510$be0b4b80$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 35210

SANDI SAID:
>It's Hermione, the intensely academic bookworm who is atypical of girls of 
>this age.  Ginny is much more feminine and is will ing to wear her heart on 
>her sleeve and take the risk of rejection or ridicule; Hermione only does 
>that when she tries to participate in Snape's class, not with boys.  
>Socially, she's a bit of a late bloomer, I think.

*swells to twice her normal size, which is still pathetically unthreatening* Contrary to popular belief, the average teenage girl *is* capable of better attributes than being "feminine" and emotionally easy to read.  *Tries unsuccessfully to smooth her ruffled fur* Growl.  Hermione is intelligent and brave and confident and I don't understand people who refuse to recognize these facts.  It's like the columnist who said that JKR had no "strong" female characters and accused Hermione of being (oh, horror of horrors) unattractive and brainy.  *WHY* does everyone assume that the only power worth having for a girl is *sexual* (which, of course, suggests that the only power a female should have is given by males). No one ever gets on Harry or Ron's case for being unattractive.

Agh.  Furthermore, I believe that Hermione certainly showed a mature, responsible attitude to the contorted, if juvenile, romantic relations in GoF.  While Ginny *did* manage to pull it all off with considerably more dignity than the boys, she also had a relatively easy time of it all.  Hermione, on the other hand, had to deal with the whole Victor/Ron thing *and* that Rita Skeeter article about her and Harry.  If her calm and mature reaction to that article doesn't show lack of concern for romantic ridicule, I don't know what does.  IMHO, Ginny, in the same situation, would have been an emotional, embarrassed wreck about the whole thing, causing the situation to be worse than it actually was.

I could list several situations in which Hermione risked ridicule or embarrassment in order to do what she believed to be right (notably SPEW and her refusal to take Trewlaney's ramblings seriously).  If many of these instances did not have anything to do with romance, does it make them less brave or risk-taking on her part? Again, why does the only function of a young female seem to be being pretty, sensitive, emotional, etc?

Not that Hermione is anything *but* sensitive.  Remember in GoF, after Harry's fight with Ron, Harry is dreading going to the Great Hall for breakfast, but as he enters the common room, Hermione is there to intercept him with food and a suggestion to take a walk, which Harry (with much relief and gratitude) accepts.  I could have kissed Hermione at this point.  She was exactly where her friend needed her to be at that point.  She not only had the sensitivity and presence of mind to recognize Harry's situation, but also knew *exactly* how to react, given the circumstances.  It was almost as if she had read Harry's mind - this suggests her to be quite a bit more empathic than most people seem to be willing to give her credit for.  Furthermore, she shows insight into both of the boys' mental conditions throughout the majority of the books.  She knew exactly what was wrong with Ron in GoF, didn't she?  Not that it was particularly hard to figure out, but she also managed to be both supportive of Harry while also tactfully trying to get him to see Ron's side of the situation *and* vice versa.

Moreover, I severely oppose Sandi's assertion that Hermione is not "feminine".  First of all, as we see the story from Harry POV and Hermione is more likely to behave in a stereotypically female fashion while in the company of other females (who knows whether or not she and Pavarti share late-night giggles over the boys they have crushes on), I do not believe it to be fair to assume that Hermione lacks these "feminine virtues".  Furthermore, who says that femininity is all about "wearing your heart on your sleeve" and the like?  Why can't someone be devoted to learning and feminine at the same time?  Where it is stated that, in order to be feminine, one must abstain from being assertive or bookworm-ish?

If all teenage girls were like Ginny, I would probably be driven to suicide.  For me, at least, being friends with a person like Ginny is extremely emotionally stressful.  You just can't trust people such as she to have a grasp on their own emotions or what they really want and/or need.  Therefore, they are constantly putting themselves in situations that will inevitably bring pain and suffering upon themselves and, potentially, the people around them.  I am constantly thinking "I told you so." about people such as she.  Not only are they unable to take care of themselves, but they insist on making the same mistakes over and over, regardless to the attempts of others to help them.  They also have the extremely annoying habit of begging for this help once they have gotten themselves into trouble (again) and generally being weepy and self-pitying after they have become deeply entrench in an undesirable situation (for the millionth time in a row).  I'm not saying that one ought to close oneself off, emotionally, from the world in order to remain unhurt, but some people *seriously* never learn.

People like Hermione, on the other hand, you can generally trust to do what they believe to be *right*, whether or not you agree with them.  I do not worry about the friends I have who are like Hermione, nor do they expect me to worry about them.  They are strong and have a good sense of self that enables them to correctly deduce what they want and need and then act accordingly.  As shown with the SPEW incident, Hermione is unwilling to back down on her morals or beliefs simply because they are unpopular.  While she may have gone a little overboard (hey, no one can be perfect all the time), she *was* IMHO essentially in the right.

Of course, this all just my take on Ginny and Hermione's personalities.  Much of this is speculation and what I have read into the actual text.  However, the accusation of Hermione, at least, to be unfeminine and emotionally immature *is*, IMHO, canonically disputed.
 
laura



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





From huntleyl at mssm.org  Thu Feb 14 04:53:47 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 23:53:47 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort in need of a good memory aid?
References: <a4ev17+qdb1@eGroups.com> <00db01c1b4ec$782114c0$a54e28d1@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <00de01c1b513$9655dc60$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 35211

SAITAINA SAID:
>Probably mentioned but I must bring it up after re-reading CoS....Voldemort
>has a horrible memory for important things. 

Heh...although his career at Hogwarts was admittedly brilliant.  How *did* the guy who opened the CoS, created a diary-shadow of himself in case of an emergency (you have to admit, it's a creative Plan B), AND effectively frame Hagrid for the petrifactions - all under Dumbledore's nose - turn into the guy who can't kill a pre-teenage boy, after having tied him to a gravestone and surrounded him with DE's?  My guess?  All those experimental spells for immorality addled his brains.  *shakes head* And I bet he's still thinking the green skin was the worst of the side effects.  Poor old Voldie.  I wonder if he could get off on a not guilty by reason of insanity plea.

laura


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





From ck32976 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 14 17:09:38 2002
From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:09:38 -0000
Subject: Book V: A proposal!
In-Reply-To: <a4eo7r+kfrc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4gr0i+m9h4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35212

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> Ahemmm...
> 
> Sonorus!
> 
> We have little idea when OOTP will come out, but it WILL come out. 
At 
> least, I very much hope so.
> 
> On that day, wouldn't it be nice to have a list of predictions and 
> theories already made, so that we could go down that list and note 
> each one's confirmation, dissolution, or continuing status?
> 
> Thankyou very much.
> 
> Eileen

I really like that idea.  How would we go about putting that 
together?  It would be fun to see what turns out to be true, and what 
doesn't.  Good thinking!
Carrie




From tanie_05 at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 14 17:14:22 2002
From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:14:22 -0000
Subject: Head Boy & Head Girl????
Message-ID: <a4gr9e+nvgi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35213

Hey everyone. I just have a quick question. How many Head Boys & Head 
Girls are there at one time? I thought there was one of each, but I 
read something on the Internet that makes it sound like there's one 
in each House. Please help me out!!! Thanks!!

-Kyrstyne (who is now confused out of her mind)




From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 14 17:15:52 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:15:52 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cosmetic Magic and Wizard Attitudes - No Wizard Cosmo
Message-ID: <F212EMzAUor03u9PH3I00002f09@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35214

Quoth Angie:
>I tend to agree with this statement.  There is probably a lot of
pressure in both worlds to look beautiful.  Yet, just because
cosmetic surgery is available to muggles does not mean that all
muggles would get it if the opportunity arose.  Although there are
probably many ways to magically alter one's appearance, many wizards
probably choose not to do so.  Whether wizard or muggle, one can
learn to accept and love one's body for what it is.

One could imagine a time when the charms that would allow for a permanent 
change to one's physical appearance were first crafted. People started 
changing their appearance in every miniscule way they could think of, and 
eventually it culminated in a situation where the Council of Wizards 
(predecessor to the MoM) had to go in and undo some of the damage when, in 
some wizarding village or other, everyone looked exactly the same. All 
perfect, but all unhappy.

Like unto the notion that money and longevity are the two things that we 
want most but need least, so might also go vanity.

J

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





From ancarett at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 14 17:32:24 2002
From: ancarett at hotmail.com (ancarett)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:32:24 -0000
Subject: Would Lucius have gone on a Voldy hunt?
In-Reply-To: <a4feqa+5438@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4gsb8+oi2n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35215

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uilnslcoap" <devin.smither at y...> wrote:
> 
> I would have agreed with you until a couple of days ago, when I 
> realized that *dun, dun, dun!* Lucius gave Ginny Riddle's diary.
> 
> Now, I suppose we can say that he was really doing it more to get 
> Ginny to murder some Mudbloods and ruin Arthur's reputation 
> (tarnished with Muggle love as it already is) than to bring old 
Voldy 
> back, but he must have known that was going to happen.

In Knockturn Alley, Harry saw Malfoy selling off some "suspicious" 
possessions: maybe he had planned to sell off Riddle's diary in much 
the same fashion? Passing it off on Ginny seems to me more an act of 
desperation and anti-Weasley sentiment than carefully crafted "set-
up." I doubt Malfoy had an idea of its abilities: do you 
really think he was the type to go writing in a diary? He might 
merely have wanted to dispose of the diary because of its provenance, 
all unknowing of its power. 
 
> I don't think I entirely understand Lucius's seeming reluctance to 
> bring Voldy back to power, but it seems his CoS antics at least 
> suggest he was trying to engender it in some way, even if he wasn't 
> as brimmingly enthusiastic as Crouch Jr.  However, if someone has a 
> better idea about his motives in giving Ginny the diary in CoS, I'd 
> like to hear it.

I'm not sure Malfoy IS all that thrilled to see Voldemort returning 
to power. After all, the defeat of the first go-round has to be a 
haunting memory. Malfoy and others were able to survive his fall, but 
probably still feel it was a close thing. Now Voldemort's return 
threatens the status quo in which they're not too badly off: Malfoy 
still wealthy, extremely influential in the wizarding world and with 
a young son he might worry about as well (perhaps leading him to lean 
towards caution this time around).

> Devin, thinking of a possible scenario of Voldemort giving Lucius 
the 
> diary sometime in the late '70s/early '80s "just in case"

I think that Malfoy might be involved in 
the "mysterious ownership of the Riddle estate for tax purposes" 
which also could account for how Lucius Malfoy ended up in possession 
of Voldemort's effects.

Ancarett http://ancarett.com





From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Thu Feb 14 18:59:20 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:59:20 -0000
Subject: Prefects
In-Reply-To: <a4glla+4e4o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4h1e8+8cbl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35216

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> As for her diligence in studying, I think it's more a sign of
> her perfectionism than inability to get great marks without studying. 
> Sure, she could coast and settle for a 97 on that Transfiguration
> exam, but no, she's gotta get it *all* right, including the extra
> credit.

Perhaps.  Still, she reminds me of the people I went to school with whose 
academic accomplishments were attributable solely to their 
diligence/perfectionism. In other words, if Harry and Ron applied themselves as 
she does, they'd probably get the same grades, too!




From saramull at optonline.net  Thu Feb 14 19:03:13 2002
From: saramull at optonline.net (sarah28962000)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:03:13 -0000
Subject: LV  will never trust Snape again
Message-ID: <a4h1lh+m7d2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35217

I've only been reading along for a week now, so maybe this has been 
addressed somewhere in the past 35,000 posts, but I don't think 
Voldemort has any chance of trusting Snape enough to make him a 
useful spy.  Remember in the first book, where Snape is berating 
Quirrel, about how he needs to decide which side he is on?  Well, 
duh, Voldemort is right there on the back of Quirrel's head.  It must 
be pretty obvious which side Snape is on now.  If Voldemort thought 
there was any lingering loyalty in Snape why wouldn't he have Quirrel 
whip off the turban and reveal himself and get Snape to help him get 
the stone? or even posess Snape instead?  There's also the matter of 
Snape trying so hard to save Harry's life, when everyone knows he 
hates Harry (or at least Quirrel knows, and I assume V. knows what 
Quirrel knows).  All Snape had to do was look in the other direction 
& Harry would be dead, & no one would be the wiser, and instead, 
Snape volunteers to referee the next match to protect Harry!!  What 
self-respecting death-eater wouldn't take a bitter satisfaction in 
letting the little squirt die, even if he didn't think there was any 
chance of V. coming back.

But to me the important part is that V. obviously doesn't think it 
worth the risk to reveal himself to Snape, even to help Quirrel stand 
up to Snape's bullying when the're alone in the forest.  How does he 
know Snape is loyal to Dumbledore?  Did he reveal his true colors 
(intentionally or not) before Voldemort was disencorporated (or 
whatever).

At the end of GoF, V. says he is going to kill Snape (at least that's 
how I interpreted it) and I don't see how Snape is going to convince 
him otherwise.

Sarah (who really likes Snape & is worried about him)





From cindysphynx at home.com  Thu Feb 14 19:50:24 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:50:24 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:__SHIP:___Florence,_Bertha_and_C.U.P.I.D.=92S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R.?=
In-Reply-To: <a4gh2d+ib6r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4h4e0+fnh9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35218

Cindy wrote:
 
> > I would like to serve as tugboat and see if I can help push this 
> > Sirius & Snape SHIP theory out into the open water.  ::looks 
around 
> > on deck for canon, finds mostly speculation:: 

Charis Julia replied:

> 
>  Point taken. But do L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S.& Co have a firmer basis on 
> Canon? Uh-oh! Am I showing off my apalling lack of information on 
> recent posts again? Don't throttle me guys! I'll refrain from 
> expressing opinion on matter till have caught up again. 
> 

Oh, no.  I didn't make myself clear.  I was suggesting that there 
wasn't much canon in the ideas *I* was about to present.  I wasn't 
remarking on any lack of canon basis for your theory; I was trying to 
build your theory up.

<snip long Florence/Bertha/Snape/Sirius theory>

Charis Julia again:

>But does Florence have to be Snape's girlfriend and not 
> Sirius's? I rather liked the idea of Sirius in love! And would 
Sirius 
> really be likely to go after a girl interested in Snape? AND this 
> messes up my Tragic Element! But, hey! If it works for you, I've no 
> problem! Your scenario still fits in with the basic 
> C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. framework. So hop on board if you feel 
> inclined to!

Why can't Florence be Sirius' girlfriend?  Hmmm.  Let's spin that for 
a bit.  If Florence if Sirius' girlfriend, then Bertha sees Snape 
kissing Florence, who has suddenly developed an appreciation for 
sallow skin, hooked noses and greasy hair.  Well, OK.  Snape curses 
Bertha, but Sirius hears about it anyway.  This would provide a 
motive for Sirius to hate Snape, but not necessarily the reverse.  It 
also would come up short in its effort to be a motive for everything 
Snape does -- turning DE, hating James, hating Sirius.

Why would Sirius go after Snape's girlfriend?  Because (and this is 
difficult to admit because it goes against my SINISTER instincts) 
Sirius is just plain not nice.  In fact, I don't see Sirius having a 
girlfriend.  Sirius just has girls, a harem, really, following him 
around, just hoping to be the chosen one.  It was just sickening to 
watch, I'd imagine.  Lily was the one girl Sirius never went after 
out of loyalty to James.

That said, we do need someone to devise a theory for why Sirius hates 
Snape so much.  This is more than just the hatred Sirius has at the 
end of GoF.  For some reason, Sirius hated Snape enough to play the 
Prank, but I haven't seen a LOLLIPOPS, George, CUPIDSBLUDGER, Prince, 
Mercy, Mercy II type of explanation that I find compelling.  Any 
takers?

> Charis Julia, who thanks her sturdy tugboat!

Why, you're welcome, and good luck on the tests!

Cindy




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Thu Feb 14 19:57:40 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:57:40 -0000
Subject: Snape the 4th Man?>Re: LV  will never trust Snape again
In-Reply-To: <a4h1lh+m7d2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4h4rk+t6jk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35219

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sarah28962000" <saramull at o...> wrote:
> Remember in the first book, where Snape is berating 
> Quirrel, about how he needs to decide which side he is on?  

Yeah, so what?

> Well, 
> duh, Voldemort is right there on the back of Quirrel's head.  It
must 
> be pretty obvious which side Snape is on now.

Oops. Oh yeah, that.

Um, well, yeah, V probly won't trust Snape as Snape.  Even 
without that giveaway, Snape would need to explain to V
about his nonaction while V was... erm... indesposed.  Maybe 
Snape could wriggle into the circle as the 4th Man? Is this
why JKR is vague as to who the 4th Man is?

OTOH, if Snape didn't know what Quirrel had in the back of his 
mind, he might claim (to V) that he didn't trust Quirrel enough 
to reveal himself to Quirrel as a DE, because he couldn't be sure 
Q was not himself a double agent working for Ddore.

ACTually, are we sure V went all the way around the circle in 
the graveyard scene? Was Snape in fact there, perhaps 
polyjuiced as somebody else?  V might not have addressed him
openly in the presence of the other DE's because he didn't
fully trust all of them, i.e. he knows at least one DE is a spy? If
Snape was indeed there, he had from the time Harry broke 
off the duel until Ddore summoned him, to get back to Hogwarts.
He might have apperated to the Hogwarts property line, then
hurried to where Ddore summoned him from.

Tex





From rachelrenee1 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 14 19:58:12 2002
From: rachelrenee1 at yahoo.com (rachelrenee1)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:58:12 -0000
Subject: Wands, Meanings and Where it All Could Lead...
Message-ID: <a4h4sk+ic3j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35220

Ok, while I was cooking dinner last night (my main time to ponder 
things) I was hit with a really bizzare theory, and I put it out here 
to have holes poked in it. 

Well, first we have to look at the "brother" wands of Voldemort and 
Harry. They have the same cores for power, but Volemort has Yew and 
Harry has Holly.

(The following paragraphs are paraphrases.) Well, Yew is 
traditionally the tree of death and mourning. Widow's 
broches from the Victorian era usually have a picture of a yew tree 
on them somewhere. Yews are planted in cemetaries because they were 
thought to feed in death and decay (i.e. corpses...humm, pleasant.)

Holly on the other hand, is associated with life. It is an 
evergreen. It is alive even in the harshest of winters. This is the 
reason it is a Christmas plant, both it and pine are alive and 
symbols of life in the time of death and stasis that is winter. And 
it is interesting that it is associated with Christmas. For 
Christians, this celebrates the birth of Christ. But on the lunar 
cycle, December the 21st is the winter solstice (ok, I know I spelled 
that wrong, but I am in a bit of a hurry). After the 21st of 
December, the days get longer and spring is on its way. Rebirth, 
renewal, etc. (All this about the woods is paraphrased from the 
*wonderful* etymological site off of the Lexicon. 
http://www.theninemuses.net/hp/  If you haven't seen it, it is sooo 
worth the reading time.  Impressive.) 

Ok, so there are the woods of the wands. Certianly Voldemort's has 
lived up to its feasting on decay association. And for quite awhile, 
I had the thought that maybe Harry's would bring rebirth, etc. by 
just ridding the wozarding world of Voldemort. Still it could be. 
But what if Harry's "brother" wand had more of a inverse effect to 
Voldemort's. I mean, what if it could sort of "undo" Voldemort's 
destruction? I know there is no spell that can bring the dead back, 
but perhaps this would be something as unexpected as the Priori 
Incantatm. Sort of a brother wand effect, as well. One is the wand 
of destruction, and one is the wand of life? I don't know, and this 
is just a wild theory, but who knows? 

Ok, poke holes to your heart's content!

Rachel






From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Thu Feb 14 20:14:09 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 20:14:09 -0000
Subject: LV  will never trust Snape again
In-Reply-To: <a4h1lh+m7d2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4h5qh+1s0g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35221

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sarah28962000" <saramull at o...> wrote:
> I've only been reading along for a week now, so maybe this has been 
> addressed somewhere in the past 35,000 posts,

Yeah, we talk about this every two weeks. And we still haven't come up 
with a completely satisfying answer. Or... actually it's more 
complicated that that. Most of us agree on an answer, it's just how to 
get there.

>but I don't think 
> Voldemort has any chance of trusting Snape enough to make him a 
> useful spy. 

Now, here's where the rub is. We can't just conclude. Therefore, he 
won't be going back to Voldemort to spy again. That'd be easy, but it 
won't work.

You see, Snape has to be doing something interesting. His mission 
can't be to go through Percy's desk at the Ministry of Magic, or to 
deliver a letter to Nicholas Flamel. Both tasks could, under certain 
circumstances be dangerous, but they're not interesting. If Snape 
isn't doing what JKR has Harry guess, it's got to be just as 
intersting and dangerous a prospect as being a spy. And really, 
no-one's come up with something, and when you think about it, how 
could there be something? (Though /me tolerantly hails the "Snape is 
off contacting his vampire brethren".) No, Snape must go back to 
Voldemort. And our problem is to get him there safely. 

 Remember in the first book, where Snape is berating 
> Quirrel, about how he needs to decide which side he is on?  Well, 
> duh, Voldemort is right there on the back of Quirrel's head.  It 
must 
> be pretty obvious which side Snape is on now. 

Remember, that Snape didn't even know Quirrel was serving Voldemort. 
Talk of "sides" in that situation isn't the same as talk of "sides" in 
the Voldemort vs. the World battle. 

> If Voldemort thought 
> there was any lingering loyalty in Snape why wouldn't he have 
Quirrel 
> whip off the turban and reveal himself and get Snape to help him get 
> the stone? or even posess Snape instead? 

Voldemort is suspicious of Snape, just as of all the other 
death-eaters. Lucius Malfoy is back at the head of the DE gang, but 
what would you think his reaction to Voldie on the back of Quirrel's 
head might be. Don't you think oh-so-loyal Malfoy would have disposed 
of Quirdemort if possible? 

>There's also the matter of 
> Snape trying so hard to save Harry's life, when everyone knows he 
> hates Harry (or at least Quirrel knows, and I assume V. knows what 
> Quirrel knows).  All Snape had to do was look in the other direction 
> & Harry would be dead, & no one would be the wiser, and instead, 
> Snape volunteers to referee the next match to protect Harry!!  What 
> self-respecting death-eater wouldn't take a bitter satisfaction in 
> letting the little squirt die, even if he didn't think there was any 
> chance of V. coming back.

Why? Voldemort is totally gone, and the DEs are making their ways in 
life as best as they can. If, in this career, preserving Harry is 
important to Snape's job, how can Voldie complain? Well, he can 
complain, but the other DEs were no worse. With DEs at the ministry, 
some of them must have been involved in clamping down on Voldie's 
remaining followers etc. And, of course, Avery.... Well, that's not 
canon, so I won't get into that. Here.

Eileen




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 14 20:53:45 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 20:53:45 -0000
Subject: LV  will never trust Snape again
In-Reply-To: <a4h4rk+t6jk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4h84p+tbic@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35222

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" <jbryson at r...> wrote:

> 
> OTOH, if Snape didn't know what Quirrel had in the back of his 
> mind, he might claim (to V) that he didn't trust Quirrel enough 
> to reveal himself to Quirrel as a DE, because he couldn't be sure 
> Q was not himself a double agent working for Ddore.

Also, keep in mind that Quirrell was NOT a DE in the bad old days.  
In the graveyard scene of GoF, LV tells the the DE's, "Then...four 
years ago...the means for my return seemed assured.  A wizard--young, 
foolish, and gullible--wandered across my path in the forest I had 
made my home.  Oh, he seemed the very chance I had been dreaming 
of...for he was a teacher at Dumbledore's school..."  So, Quirrell 
was a very recent convert to the cause-- he joined after the last DE 
company picnic.

So, unless Quirrell said to Snape, "Look, I'm not stealing the stone 
for myself, I'm stealing it for our beloved Dark Lord.  Let me just 
take off my turban and show you," Snape could resonably claim that he 
thought Quirrell was trying to steal it for himself.  Says Snape to 
Voldemort, "I'm so sorry I ruined your plan, my Lord, but if I had 
only known..."

Similarly, he can make a similar excuse for saving Harry's life on 
the cursed broomstick.  "I thought you might prefer to kill him 
yourself, my Lord, so I couldn't let that loser, Quirrell, kill him 
before you had the chance." 




From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 14 20:44:22 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 20:44:22 +0000
Subject: Snape as Vampire Was: RE: Snape untrusted by LV
Message-ID: <F16IfQdmEB4HGXAwxXS0001afd8@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35223

lucky_kari was overheard saying:
>Though /me tolerantly hails the "Snape is off contacting his vampire 
>brethren".)

I'm sure this is old news as well, but has anyone compiled canon evidence 
towards the theory of Snape As Loyal Vampire Envoy (S.A.L.V.E)?

J

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





From huntleyl at mssm.org  Thu Feb 14 20:43:37 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:43:37 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Prefects
References: <a4h1e8+8cbl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000f01c1b598$472443e0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 35224

JOANNE0012 SAID:
>Perhaps.  Still, she reminds me of the people I went to school with whose 
>academic accomplishments were attributable solely to their 
>diligence/perfectionism. In other words, if Harry and Ron applied themselves as 
>she does, they'd probably get the same grades, too!

I have to disagree with you on this one.  I also have a strong feeling that you misjudged the efforts of the people you went to school with.  IMHO, academic accomplishments can never be *solely* attributed to any amount of diligent/perfectionism.  While the idea of "inherent intelligence" is an unpopular idea, I believe that, for all its unpleasantness, it *is* rooted in truth.  No amount of work can *really* make up for the level of intelligence you were born with.  This is true for all kinds of "intelligence", as well.  Hermione may have been born with a high level of academic intelligence, but in other areas of intelligence, she could just as well be sadly lacking.

However, the point is that I really don't believe Harry or Ron could out-do Hermione in an academic sense.  Furthermore, Hermione gets top-marks in *all* of her classes.  As most classes at Hogwarts (besides history) seem to involve hands-on learning, this shows that Hermione is not only smart in a book-sense, but also a powerful witch.  No amount of book-learning is going to make a person able to actually *perform* magic, even if studying the theory and such can help those who already have the talent.  Remember in PS/SS, Hermione is the only kid in the class able to make the feather float.  Another case in point is her continued superiority in transfiguration, in which she consistently changes her turtle into a teapot (or a sugarbowl? I forget) and her hedgehog into a pincushion, while the rest of the class seems to be struggling with these same things.  Also, in charms, she has no trouble with her banishing and accio charms, although most of the class seems to be having a considerable amount of trouble with their aim (although Harry does eventually get it right, making me think that he is probably Hermione's equal/superior when it comes to sheer power, although not when it comes to intellect).

I believe that Hermione's constant studying is more the effect of her having a great thirst to know *everything* there is to know (I feel this way myself at times, although I have never pursued this goal as vivaciously as Hermione) than the fact that she actually *needs* to be doing all that studying.  Throughout the books, Hermione not only knows enough to ensure her top grades, but vastly more than she would *ever* need to know in any classroom situation.  Reading Hogwarts: A History is such an example.  Knowing the history of Hogwarts doesn't seem to be beneficial to her grades, and yet, she's got the book pretty much memorized.

Which brings me to my next point.  Hermione doesn't just study, study, study and *eventually* engrains in her memory the things she needs to know.  From her statements about "memorizing" the class books over the summer and her ability to quote nearly every book she's ever read, we can tell that Hermione has an *outstanding* memory.  And memory, of course, is one of the key factors that makes a person inherently intelligent.  Furthermore, she is not only excellent at remembering things, but she also (with the exception of forgetting that she was a witch in PS/SS) has a great ability to, in the face of a problem, come up with the right solution, even if that solution may seem, to others, entirely unrelated to the problem.

But the best, single, most concrete evidence of her inherent intellect was her ability to solve Snape's logic puzzle (granted, to the reader, it was not that hard, but JKR obviously meant it to be a doosey, and too hard for Harry to have been able to solve on his own).  Logic puzzles are great because there is no real way to study for them.  One must simply have inherent...well..*logic* to be able to be good at them.  Hermione not only solves the puzzle in a flash, but is also rewarded by Dumbledore for her efforts, showing us that *he* felt that being able to solve the puzzle was a great achievement.

Anywho, I've rambled on enough now. G'bye.

laura


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





From NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com  Thu Feb 14 21:46:16 2002
From: NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com (NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:46:16 EST
Subject: Owl Post/Mail Question
Message-ID: <48.69b7946.299d8a28@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35225

Does anyone have an idea how Harry gets a card and *gift* from the Dursleys 
each Christmas?  I can't imagine them using an Owl, unless good ol'Hedwig was 
fluttering around constantly...yet no mail carrier would deliver to 
Hogwarts...maybe a witch comes to the door offering to pick up the 
letter/gift the Dursley's *surely* would want to have delivered?  
~shahara in wi usa

shahara lefay
pagan priestess 
**serendipitously smitten with severus snape**



From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Feb 14 22:24:02 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:24:02 -0000
Subject: Owl Post/Mail Question
In-Reply-To: <48.69b7946.299d8a28@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a4hde2+gljs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35226

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., NOTaMuggleFamily at a... wrote:
> Does anyone have an idea how Harry gets a card and *gift* 
from the Dursleys 
> each Christmas?  I can't imagine them using an Owl, unless 
good ol'Hedwig was 
> fluttering around constantly...yet no mail carrier would deliver to 
> Hogwarts...maybe a witch comes to the door offering to pick up 
the 
> letter/gift the Dursley's *surely* would want to have delivered?  

Some theories, not all original with me:
1) Hedwig shows up and *shrieks* till they give her a present 
and a card.
2) There is a Post Office box which collects mail for wizards and 
forwards it via owl. 

Theories about why the Dursleys send a present:
1) They have to, or they'll be cursed
2) It makes good comic relief
3) It's a joke about those old British patents of nobility which 
provide that the Earl of So-and-so has to deliver one butt of 
malmsey every December 25th if he wants to keep his title. The 
Dursleys have to give Harry a present or they will lose the (purely 
hypothetical) stipend they have been collecting from the Ministry 
for looking after him (paid in pounds, not galleons of course).

Pippin




From pollux46 at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 14 22:47:02 2002
From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:47:02 -0000
Subject: Prefects
In-Reply-To: <a4gde2+k7ur@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4hep6+v3pd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35227

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "joanne0012" <Joanne0012 at a...> wrote:
> Hermione is certainly a scholar, but I'm not at all convinced that 
she's brilliant or 
> even especially intelligent.  She is extremely hard-working and 
conscientious, 
> which is not the same thing.  If Harry or any of the others applied 
themselves to 
> their work just as Hermione does, they'd get the same marks that 
she does.  In 
> my experience, people who are truly brilliant or extremely 
intelligent get top 
> marks despite doing LESS work than their classmates!


      Maybe. But the point is they * don't*. What makes a person 
outstanding academically cannot be only their intelligence. Hard work 
is also necessary even for the most gifted of students in order that 
they may go ahead in their studies. Hermione * does* have 
intelligence. Otherwise she could not cope the workload she forces on 
herself?- and I am not only referring to PoA here: Hermione puts a 
special effort into her homework even when she has a normal schedule. 
But the most important indication of her academic propensities is 
that she * wants* to work. Hermione has an innate thirst for 
knowledge. And this is arguably just as important as intelligence. If 
a person is born with an IQ that's off the charts but can never be 
bothered to put the slightest of efforts into promoting this natural 
gift what good is it at all? One is not born with a congenital 
knowledge of the registered Animagi of the 20th century! 

You say 
>In my experience, people who are truly brilliant or extremely 
intelligent get top 
>marks despite doing LESS work than their classmates!


     But Hermione isn't putting in hard work in a desperate struggle 
to keep up with her classmates. Quite to the opposite I get the 
impression that they are all eating her dust! Unlike Neville who, for 
whatever reasons (I favour the memory Charm theory!) simply cannot 
get it right however much he tries, Hermione's extra effort goes into 
preparing compositions that are two or three rolls of parchment 
longer than anyone else's or reading "Hogwarts: A History" and the 
likes simply for the fun of it! She would however even if she did not 
do these things most likely still be top of her class.


     I'll give you one thing though. Hermione does not have a natural 
instinct for applying her knowledge to real life situations. 

     As Lucy Austin wrote:
>I agree that Hermione will probably be a >Prefect, but quick 
thinking in the
>real world?? 'Are you a witch or aren't you?' springs to mind. I 
>also seem to
>remember her doing a lot of cowering in the Shrieking Shack! But as 
>far as
>bravery and intelligence go, definitely she should be one. Perhaps 
>she and Ron
>will be made Prefects, and Harry won't as it will only bring more 
>unwanted
>attention onto him, and then we can have some nice conflicts with 
>him being
>left out for a change!
>
>Lucy the Drifty



     Now I like that idea! Yes! By the way do we know the system with 
which prefects are chosen? Is it 1 student of each house per year, 1 
student of each sex of each house per year or what?


    You know, comparing Hermione's and Ron's chances of becoming 
Prefects the troll episode springs to mind. It's significant that 
that scene is placed right after Flitwick's Levitating class where 
Hermione (they're not friends yet) lords it over Ron ("it's Levi* 
o*sa, not Levios* a*!"). And only a few hours later when confronted 
with a rampaging troll what does she do? Shrieks and hides under 
sinks and can't even run when the boys yell at her to do so! And Ron, 
who previously couldn't even lift a feather, proceeds to levitate a 
whole troll club and knock its owner senseless with it!



     So Hermione's better than Ron at applying herself to magical 
theory and Ron can manage better in a tight spot! I think they'd 
balance out nicely as prefects! And, yeah, Harry will definitely have 
more important things to worry about...

Charis Julia.





From landers at email.unc.edu  Thu Feb 14 22:48:39 2002
From: landers at email.unc.edu (Betty)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:48:39 -0500
Subject: Snape and the wolfsbane potion in the shrieking shack (was taking Lupin 
 his potion)
References: <1013681653.1378.22619.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C6C3EC5.B8D55003@email.unc.edu>

No: HPFGUIDX 35228

>    From: "pippin_999" <foxmoth at qnet.com>
> Subject: Re: Taking Lupin his potion (WAS: What is brave?)
> 
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "porphyria at m..." <porphyria at m...>
> wrote:
> > Some of you were wondering whether Snape brought the
> werewolf-pacifying potion with him to the Shrieking Shack when
> he went after Lupin, and if not, why not.
snip the first quote and theory
> 
> Er, in that case, why does Snape make it a cauldronful at a time?
> 
> "I made an entire cauldronful," Snape continued, "if you need
> more." (same scene, a little further down the page)
> 
> No, I think it keeps all right, but has to be drunk while it's hot.  It
> will stay hot in the cauldron, but can't be reheated by magic as
> it's too unstable. There! How's that?
> 
> Pippin
> Actually, he does bring it to the shack, unless you're suggesting he was mad and lying at the time? 
I make my case with the following quote from PoA 19, the very
beginning.  "... I"ve just been to your office, LupinYou forgot to take
your potion tonight, so I took a gobletful along.  ..."
My guess is that he brought it but got everyone too riled up to
administer it before he was knocked out, and then they left the shack,
they had probably temporarily forgotten about the potion, much as we
muggles might forget to take our medicine when we've got everything else
going on.
We know he takes it to Lupin's office in the first place, so he must
have brought it to the shack.



From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Thu Feb 14 22:50:37 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:50:37 -0000
Subject: Head Boy & Head Girl????
In-Reply-To: <a4gr9e+nvgi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4hevt+dqsl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35229

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tanie_05" <tanie_05 at h...> wrote:
> Hey everyone. I just have a quick question. How many Head Boys & Head 
> Girls are there at one time? I thought there was one of each, but I 
> read something on the Internet that makes it sound like there's one 
> in each House. Please help me out!!! Thanks!!
> 
> -Kyrstyne (who is now confused out of her mind)

IIRC, about the only canon we have about the head boy/girl posistion is 
the fact that both James and Lily had the position in their last year 
at Hogwarts. Since they were both Gryffindors and in the same year, 
canon is against that particular I-net rumour.

Lately I've been wondering about head-students too: Maybe my memory is 
starting to fail on the small details (as soon as I finish the book I'm 
reading now, I'll re-read HP again), but it seems that there are years 
when there are NO head boys/girls at all, all the work being done by 
prefects. This would turn the idea of "head boy/girl" into some sort of 
oficial recognition of excelence in studies/duties or other 
cathedratical measures. At any rate, during the Sirius incidents of 
PoA, prefects were left in charge of the different houses, with no 
mention done to any head boys/girls, which is the spawning ground of 
this particular theory.

As always, if anyone has any back-up, counter-arguments or any other 
form of colaboration, they will be greatly appreciated.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf
(He who is way past his bedtime after a long day and hopes he's making 
sense - even though he's too tired to even look up appropiate passages 
to back-up his own theories)





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Feb 14 22:58:26 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:58:26 -0000
Subject: Snape and the wolfsbane potion in the shrieking shack (was taking Lupin his potion)
In-Reply-To: <3C6C3EC5.B8D55003@email.unc.edu>
Message-ID: <a4hfei+ophb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35230

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Betty <landers at e...> wrote:

> > Actually, he does bring it to the shack, unless you're suggesting
he was mad and lying at the time? 
> I make my case with the following quote from PoA 19, the very
> beginning.  "... I"ve just been to your office, LupinYou forgot to
take
> your potion tonight, so I took a gobletful along.  ..."

I took that to mean that he took the goblet along to Lupin's office. 
Lupin wasn't there, the map was, Snape saw where Lupin was and went
after him, leaving the potion behind.  Surely, if he had appeared in
the Shrieking Shack holding a big smoking goblet, Harry and the others
would've noticed.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From Edblanning at aol.com  Thu Feb 14 23:21:19 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:21:19 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Did Snape recruit Pettigrew?/ Pettigrew's wand
Message-ID: <11d.c356216.299da06f@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35231

In a message dated 07/02/02 19:03:25 GMT Standard Time, cindysphynx at home.com 
writes:


> The timeline also raises the possibility that Snape recruited Peter 
> into the Death Eaters in 1979.  You know, Snape would have told Peter 
> things like Sirius and James never respected you, you are always 
> second fiddle with them, join us, you can be a star on our team, 
> blah, blah, blah.  I can't make it work (yet) because I can't think 
> of any plausible way Snape knows that Peter is a Death Eater, doesn't 
> tell Dumbledore, and lets James, Lily and Sirius switch to Peter.  
> The only thing that comes to mind is that Snape doesn't want to admit 
> to Dumbledore his role in recruiting Peter (much the way Lupin 
> refuses to admit the werewolf adventures to Dumbledore), but I'm not 
> sold

I'm a bit behind with the post!

I speculated the other day on whether Snape recruited Pettigrew, with 
unarticulated misgivings about why this shouldn't be.
But I think there *could* be something in it. It's not at all clear exactly 
how much everyone knew at the time (or knows now) about other people's roles 
in the last Voldy war. After all, Sirius gives no sign of recognition of the 
fact that Snape was working for Dumbledore before James' and Lily's deaths 
and is surprised   when Lupin brings up his name. (Yes, I know that there is 
no reason for him to know that Snape is now a teacher, but to me it feels 
more than that. When Sirius was last free, Hogwarts was presumably the centre 
of the resistance, so if Sirius was aware that Snape was a spy it should not 
seem so strange to him that Snape was there, or at least, still in 
Dumbledore's circle.)

As I have said before, I can only make Snape-as-spy work if Snape functioned 
as a double agent. I think, therefore, that his role was *very, very* secret 
and that Dumbledore was probably the only one who knew about it. I don't 
think, therefore, that he was one of an  'inner group' of Dumbledore 
supporters. There was not *necessarily* any reason for him to know who the 
Potter's secret-keeper was. That said, I think it likely that Dumbledore 
might have told him that it was Sirius, but Dumbledore himself didn't know 
about the swap to Peter, did he? So how would Snape know? He doesn't *allow* 
the switch to Peter to happen: he doesn't know about it and he doesn't 
anticipate it as a problem. Sirius is right, no one would expect it. 

Snape doesn't seem to doubt that Sirius was the one who betrayed Lily and 
James which leads me to think that he might also think that his attempts to 
recruit Peter (if he did!) were in vain, particularly if he ended up in a 
different 'cell' of DEs. If Peter said he wasn't interested, I'm sure Snape 
could have made sufficiently persuasive threats to feel that he was safe from 
his blabbing about the attempted recruitment. He could easily have 
deliberately sown the seeds that led to his defection though, in exactly the 
way you suggest.

I'm not at all convinced by this theory, though I quite like it. It would 
give another reason, other than his pig-headed prejudice against Sirius, for 
Snape's resisting the idea that Peter is still alive. And of course, once he 
can get his head around the fact that he didn't fail to protect Lily and 
James from Sirius, he can have another fit of angst at having recruited their 
real betrayer! 


Going back further,

In a message dated 05/02/02 01:58:47 GMT Standard Time, mrgrrrargh at aol.com 
writes:


> Well, Petigrew and Minerva both transform with their clothes as did 
> MalfoyFerret, I think clothes (and wands) stay with ya when you change 
> forms.
> 
> 


I've been puzzling over this one. Can anyone explain why Pettigrew doesn't 
seem to have his wand with him in the Shrieking Shack?. I know it isn't 
specifically mentioned as not there, but you would have thought that Sirius 
and Lupin might have felt it wise to disarm him, given his track record. It 
wasn't found after his disappearance, either, just a heap of blood-stained 
robes. 

And the dropping of those those robes (which he can't have been wearing, 
otherwise they would have transformed too), along with the severing of his 
finger implies that he intended to disappear in this manner all along, 
implicating someone else for his murder ( I dislike him more every time I 
think about him). Why not just disappear as a rat? Does this imply that the 
DEs know he's an animagus, if it's them he fears rather then the debilitated 
Voldemort? And was he specifically hoping to implicate Sirius, or was it just 
bad luck on his part that he caught up with him as he prepared to stage his 
disappearance?

Eloise, who probably isn't making any sense as her brains have been addled by 
three days with small people at Disneyland in the rain.



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




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Thu Feb 14 23:26:08 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 23:26:08 -0000
Subject: Mail Question
In-Reply-To: <48.69b7946.299d8a28@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a4hh2g+ml6j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35232

Shahara Lefay, pagan priestess wrote: 
Does anyone have an idea how Harry gets a card and *gift* from the 
Dursleys each Christmas?  I can't imagine them using an Owl, unless 
good ol'Hedwig was fluttering around constantly...yet no mail carrier 
would deliver to Hogwarts...maybe a witch comes to the door offering to 
pick up the letter/gift the Dursley's *surely* would want to have 
delivered?  
~shahara in wi usa
 
shahara lefay
pagan priestess 
**serendipitously smitten with severus snape**
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There is some canon evidence about how the prime minister of England is 
aware of the wizard world (all that double-search of Sirius Black at 
the beggining of PoA, both in the muggle AND wizard world sort of 
springs to mind), so it's not altoghether impossible that the wizards 
have implanted some of their own in strategic places all over the 
muggle world, with the consentment of the muggle goverment. 
Communications would definitely(sp?) be one of such places, and, since 
they're there, they could pick up letters sent to wizard places as an 
added bonus.

Of course, in a much less conspiracy level, they could just have agreed 
with the muggle goverment some sort of wizard postal code. Any letter 
(independently of where it's adressed to) that bears that number is 
sent to an agreed place automatically. That place is controled by a 
branch of the MoM that re-sends all those letters by owl post to the 
wizard is intended to.

That said (which explains why Hermione receives birthday presents from 
her parents), I believe that the Durley's presents are intended as 
comic relief only, sice they're far too ridiculous to be true, in 
accordance to the reality rules* created by JKR for HPverse 
(interpreted by me, of course. You're free to disagree on the nature of 
this "presents" and their relation to the reality rules; see below).

*Reality Rules: conglomerate of all rules (both spoken and unspoken) 
that govern a fanasy world, as laid (willingly or unwillingly) by it's 
author. For example, something that looks out of place in the HPverse 
makes sense in other fantasy worlds, where the reality rules are 
different: I would find it very out of place in the HPverse a troll 
that, being stupid in normal temperature, thinks extremely well when 
temperature drops. However, it makes sense in discworld**, where trolls 
are impure silicoid-based life-forms whose rate of conductivity raises 
to near-superconductivity on low temperatures. And of course, no-one 
actually expects discworld to make sense, even though it 
(unfortunately?) makes _too_ much sense.

**Discworld: a world flat like a disk thet is carried in the backs of 
four elephants who travel the void of space in the back of a giant 
turtle. 
(What sort of person writes about a circular world supported by four 
elephants on the back of a giant star turtle? And what sort of a mind 
then asks the question... So what sex is this turtle? Answer: Terry 
Pratchett)

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf
(He who just _knows_ he's going to be shouted at _again_ for 
introducing OT in the main list, but just couldn't help himself from 
introducing the "reality rules" concept he's working on at the moment)

PD: if anyone wishes to discuss Terry Pratchett's view of reality with 
me, please do so privately. If anyone wishes to discuss my theory of 
Reality Rules, please refrain for a while (unless to back it up, which 
would be welcomed); it's still in development, if it's ever finished, 
I'll post it with some canon and examples to back it up so you can 
puncture it to your hearts' content)

GW





From westmerd at health.qld.gov.au  Thu Feb 14 22:52:53 2002
From: westmerd at health.qld.gov.au (Debbie Westmerland)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 08:52:53 +1000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and the wolfsbane potion in the
	shrieking shack (was taking Lupin his potion)
Message-ID: <sc6ccc72.053@HEALTH-ES2.HEALTH.QLD.GOV.AU>

No: HPFGUIDX 35233

>>> Betty <landers at email.unc.edu> 02/15/02 08:48am >>>
>    From: "pippin_999" <foxmoth at qnet.com>
> Subject: Re: Taking Lupin his potion (WAS: What is brave?)
> 
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "porphyria at m..." <porphyria at m...>
> wrote:
> > Some of you were wondering whether Snape brought the
> werewolf-pacifying potion with him to the Shrieking Shack when
> he went after Lupin, and if not, why not.
snip the first quote and theory
> 
> Er, in that case, why does Snape make it a cauldronful at a time?
> 
> "I made an entire cauldronful," Snape continued, "if you need
> more." (same scene, a little further down the page)
> 
> No, I think it keeps all right, but has to be drunk while it's hot.  It
> will stay hot in the cauldron, but can't be reheated by magic as
> it's too unstable. There! How's that?
> 
> Pippin
> Actually, he does bring it to the shack, unless you're suggesting he was mad and lying at the time? 

I think what happened was Snape bought the potion to Lupin's room saw he wasn't there, saw the Map that said Lupin and Black and then raced out the  office to the tree, I find it very hard that he could have managed to carry his wand in one hand, hold the invisible cloak and also carry the potion.

I make my case with the following quote from PoA 19, the very
beginning.  "... I"ve just been to your office, Lupin. You forgot to take
your potion tonight, so I took a gobletful along.  ..."
My guess is that he brought it but got everyone too riled up to
administer it before he was knocked out, and then they left the shack,
they had probably temporarily forgotten about the potion, much as we
muggles might forget to take our medicine when we've got everything else
going on.
We know he takes it to Lupin's office in the first place, so he must
have brought it to the shack.

Debbie





From moongirlk at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 15 00:00:02 2002
From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:00:02 -0000
Subject: anti-SHIP: Ginny griping
In-Reply-To: <00b901c1b510$be0b4b80$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a4hj23+u8v5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35234

Just a quick couple of comments.

> SANDI SAID:
> >It's Hermione, the intensely academic bookworm who is atypical of 
girls of 
> >this age.  Ginny is much more feminine and is will ing to wear her 
heart on 
> >her sleeve and take the risk of rejection or ridicule; Hermione 
only does 
> >that when she tries to participate in Snape's class, not with 
boys.  
> >Socially, she's a bit of a late bloomer, I think.
> 
--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" <huntleyl at m...> wrote:

> *swells to twice her normal size, which is still pathetically 
>unthreatening* Contrary to popular belief, the average teenage girl 
>*is* capable of better attributes than being "feminine" and 
>emotionally easy to read.  <snip of list of Hermione's many virtues 
and something of a rant on femininity and intellectuality and their 
non-mutual-exclusivity>

I agree with you completely that there's nothing wrong with 
Hermione's personality or her bookishness.  I also agree with Sandi's 
initial statement that Hermione is atypical.  She's rather 
extraordinary, and therefore Ginny somewhat pales by comparison, 
being much more... ordinary, as preteen/young teen girls go.  I think 
(not trying to put words in anyone's mouth) that Sandi's main point 
was that there's nothing wrong with Ginny being the way she is 
either, but alas it's always a risk to try to defend one character by 
comparing them to another (just ask those involved in the Great 
Snape/Sirius debate).

I think Hermione rocks, and I know that my fondness for Ginny is 
based on very little but...
> 
> Agh.  Furthermore, I believe that Hermione certainly showed a 
mature, responsible attitude to the contorted, if juvenile, romantic 
relations in GoF.  While Ginny *did* manage to pull it all off with 
considerably more dignity than the boys, she also had a relatively 
easy time of it all.  Hermione, on the other hand, had to deal with 
the whole Victor/Ron thing *and* that Rita Skeeter article about her 
and Harry.  If her calm and mature reaction to that article doesn't 
show lack of concern for romantic ridicule, I don't know what does.  
IMHO, Ginny, in the same situation, would have been an emotional, 
embarrassed wreck about the whole thing, causing the situation to be 
worse than it actually was.

Ok, I can buy that that's you're opinion, but I'd love to hear how it 
was formed.  What makes you think that while she was able to handle 
turning down Harry (puppyluv of her young life) in an honest and 
gracious way in order to honor her commitment to Neville, keeping 
Hermione's secret, watching her crush with someone else and drooling 
over someone else still at the ball and being trod upon yet 
continuing to dance with Neville, but she would be a wreck if she had 
to deal with a somewhat similar situation with two different boys and 
a tabloid rumor?

<snip>
> 
> If all teenage girls were like Ginny, I would probably be driven to 
>suicide.  For me, at least, being friends with a person like Ginny 
>is extremely emotionally stressful.  You just can't trust people 
>such as she to have a grasp on their own emotions or what they 
>really want and/or need.  Therefore, they are constantly putting 
>themselves in situations that will inevitably bring pain and 
>suffering upon themselves and, potentially, the people around them.  
>I am constantly thinking "I told you so." about people such as she.  
>Not only are they unable to take care of themselves, but they insist 
>on making the same mistakes over and over, regardless to the 
>attempts of others to help them.  They also have the extremely 
>annoying habit of begging for this help once they have gotten 
>themselves into trouble (again) and generally being weepy and self-
>pitying after they have become deeply entrench in an undesirable 
>situation (for the millionth time in a row).  I'm not saying that 
>one ought to close oneself off, emotionally, from the world in order 
>to remain unhurt, but some people *seriously* never learn.

Dude, woah Nelly and what the-?

Are we still talking about Ginny or is there some (major) projection 
going on here?  Who are these "people like Ginny" and how exactly are 
they like her (and what did they do to you, you poor thing?)? 
 
The major objections I've seen to Ginny are that she's:

1. Giggly and childish (which I think is what Sandi was trying to 
address and saying that's not so abnormal for a girl her age).

2. Whiney and weak (which I personally address by handing over a copy 
of GoF and saying "where?" because in my copy she's grown up quite a 
lot and is no longer that way, if, indeed, she ever was to begin 
with, which I don't really buy, as I think it's normal for a child to 
be a little weepy after, well, you know, posession, unwilling chicken-
murdering, friend-petrifying and near-death experiences and all).  
OR...

3.  Underdevelopped as a character (walking scenery was a recent term 
I liked) and not really worth our attention until she's developped 
enough to be interesting.

It's this third scenario that I understand as a reason to not care 
for the character because I admit that some of my fondness for her is 
possibly extratextual, or at least as much inferred as implied.  
Under this scenario, certainly she can't be this diabolical and 
dangerous person that "people like her" are, so I'm really lost.  

So please can you explain what you mean by "people such as she", 
because maybe there's a new category to add to the "reasons I hate 
Ginny" list.  Or to be more precise, I guess basically my question 
is - huh?

kimberly
who'd like to add to somebody's prediction list that Ginny will turn 
out in the end not to be a bit of animated scenery, a whinging baby, 
a giggly child or an emotional torturer of her friends and family, 
and that some of the people who haven't already written her off might 
even end up admiring her.  I'm no Trelawny, and I haven't got any tea 
that's not in bags, but I'm giving it a shot, anyway.




From k_wayment at hotmail.com  Fri Feb 15 00:16:48 2002
From: k_wayment at hotmail.com (Kyli Wayment)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:16:48 
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Head Boy & Head Girl????
Message-ID: <F157SoEG1UmrJpIOLVh00009deb@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35235


Grey Wolf wrote:

[snip]
>At any rate, during the Sirius incidents of
>PoA, prefects were left in charge of the different houses, with no
>mention done to any head boys/girls, which is the spawning ground of
>this particular theory.

>As always, if anyone has any back-up, counter-arguments or any other
>form of colaboration, they will be greatly appreciated.

In PoA, Percy Weasley was the Head Boy, and Dumbledore said that the Head 
Boy/Girl were in charge, as well as the prefects, or something along those 
lines.

[snip]
>but it seems that there are years when there are NO head boys/girls at all, 
>all the work being done by prefects. This would turn the idea of "head 
>boy/girl" into some sort >of oficial recognition of excelence in 
>studies/duties or other cathedratical measures.

I imagine that there is always a head boy and girl, but since we get Harry's 
point of view, we don't hear about the other head boys/girls because they 
don't affect Harry's life immediately, whereas Percy does, because he is 
Ron's brother.
  Does that help?

~Kyli





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




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Fri Feb 15 00:16:53 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:16:53 -0000
Subject: Snape & the DEs, Reprise (With Bits of Where's The Canon?)
Message-ID: <a4hk1l+v545@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35236

> My sense of 
> disappointment at the notion that because my interpretation was so 
> unusual, it was therefore likely to be running contrary to Authorial 
> Intent -- to be, in fact, fairly subversive -- was a disappointment 
> with the author.  

While I have to review my Eileenocentric viewpoint, I have a feeling 
that JKR is with us about "the emotional resonance". No idea why. I 
just feel it. I have a strong rational stance against fate and 
intuition, and a strong emotional tug towards the two. It complicates 
my life way too much. 

I have a lot of very subversive readings in my background, including 
the highly controversial but completely uncontradictable observation 
that the Galactic Empire, as shown in the current Star Wars movies was 
a force for good in the galaxy, not a force for evil. But it belongs 
to that class of subversive materials that I can't bring myself to 
believe, though I can seriously argue. On the other hand, there's some 
that I do believe, but I came to after some thought. For example, 
there is definitely revisionist history going on in C.S. Lewis's 
"Prince Caspian" and "The Voyage of the Dawn treader". The facts about 
the Telmarines just don't add up satisfactorally, so I began to 
speculate,  "Well, of course, Caspian, Drinian, Rhynelf and the rest 
wouldn't really want to face up to their past." Lewis obviously didn't 
intend for me to go all subversive here, but I almost feel it's a 
legitimate response to the text. 

But to take a subversive view without even noticing it's subversive is 
another matter. Your essay inspired me to speak up in Shakespeare 
class, and explain my subversive reading of "Antony and Cleopatra", 
picked up when I was only 11, and found the play at my granparents' 
cabin. I just cannot see that play the way every critic I've read sees 
it. I'm trying to work hard on developing the ability to see it as 
it's supposed to be seen, just for the sake of understanding people, 
but in such cases, I often feel like a blind person hearing talk about 
colours. 
 
> That does make sense to me, on an intellectual level.  It doesn't 
> happen to work for me emotionally or viscerally -- JKR's Whites are 
> themselves quite grey, so for the blacks to be blacker than black 
> just feels...oh, unbalanced somehow, in a way that is perhaps far 
> more aesthetic than philosophical, and in a way which does 
absolutely 
> nothing for me *personally* in terms of appreciating Snape's 
Greyness 
> or his Indeterminacy -- but I can understand how that could work 
> differently for other people.

I agree. Was I the only person to be disappointed by Lord Voldemort's 
most frequent appearance? I wasn't disappointed by the content of the 
scenes in a major way. I still love them, but I missed the greying of 
Voldemort that we saw in Chamber of Secrets. It bugs me that there is 
so little of Tom Riddle left in Voldemort. The most frightening image 
of V. in GoF for me was "a teenage boy, a stranger, dark-haired and 
pale." I keep wondering what happened to that kid, who started out 
like Oliver Twist and was still only a teenager when he had the blood 
of a least four people on his hands. You noted that "lazy" is the HP 
dark side marker. But what fascinated me about Riddle was that he 
wasn't described as moving "lazily." He seemed so eager. The thing 
that made me flinch the most in GoF was Voldemort's "red eyes." 
Ughhh... Voldemort the dumb cartoon villain was back. There were some 
Riddlish lines in the proceedings, but mostly Voldemort "lazily" 
talked to Lucius, tortured Avery etc. 

> And I think that that tension, that contrast between Snape's 
> instincts and his intellect, has always been central to how I've 
read 
> the character.  I do not, for example, tend to see Snape as a person 
> struggling with conflicting impulses, precisely.  Rather, I tend to 
> see him as someone whose *impulses* all lead him in one unerring 
> direction -- but in a direction that he has chosen to reject on 
> abstract and purely philosophical grounds.  In other words, I see 
him 
> as a Dark Wizard.  In instinct.  In impulse.  In inclination.  To 
> some extent, perhaps even in essence.  But by choosing not to act on 
> those instincts and inclinations and tastes and desires, he manages 
> to be something slightly different.  Grey.  Neither fish nor fowl, 
as 
> you wrote, but neither fish nor fowl in a slightly different *way,* 
I 
> think, than many others have read him.

A very interesting intrepretation, and one that, having not thought 
about before, I now judge to correspond to my feelings. This reading 
seems a meeting of two currents of thought that you appraised as being 
at odds with each other. "Choice" vs. "Blood" again. 

Arggggghhh, but this is problematic for me. You see, your analysis 
that strikes me as completely true is rather at odds with my own 
attachment to LOLLIPOPS. I'll have to think about this one awhile. But 
unlike Ambush theories, which can be modified and reorganized to suit 
anyone, they may be unreconciliable. Captain Tabouli, help! I feel 
this uncontrollable urge to jump ship, to this nice little rowboat of 
Elkins's. A warm fuzzy voice is sounding in my mind. "Jump! Jump!"

You're Imperiusing me! You! 

> The suggestion that Snape left the DEs because when it came right 
> down to it, he lacked a taste for torture or murder, for example, 
has 
> always left me a bit cold because in my reading of Snape, of 
*course* 
> he has a taste for it.  A taste for it is *exactly* what he's got.  
> His taste for it...well, that's sort of his problem, isn't it?

Very good reading. Now, what can prompt a man to change then, who does 
have a taste for it? 

> I mean, really.  What sort of heartless monster *wouldn't* 
sympathize 
> with Snape at the end of PoA, when he disintegrates utterly into his 
> raving "Curses, Foiled Again, and Damn You, You Meddling Kids" 
> hysteria?  You'd just have to be made of *stone,* wouldn't you?

A lot of my friends least sympathize with him here. Very strange, from 
my point of view.

> For a woman with no name -- not even a maiden name, for heaven's 
> sakes! -- and only one line of dialogue, she certainly is Dead Sexy. 

Oh, btw. It occured to that here is another Canon instance of a 
married couple who knew each other at Hogwarts. Of course, we don't 
have dates for when they were married. Mrs. Lestrange could have been 
Miss. Someone at the height of You-Know-Who's power, and only married 
afterwards, so that she and Mr. Lestrange could live a comfortable 
life searching for Voldemort together. 

> Going back to a few of the things you were saying earlier about 
JKR's 
> taste for misdirection, I really do believe that Slytherin=Evil is a 
> bit of a red herring in the books.  

I agree it is that, but I also think, and I have no evidence for this, 
that JKR's vision of things is growing throughout the books. I think 
it very likely that is started out a bit more simplistic than it gives 
evidence of becoming now. While I don't thing she takes suggested 
plotlines from fans, I think she does react to the questions of people 
who have read her books: from someone at a book signing, to an 
interviewer, to her publishers, to her friends and family. All people 
do that. They get motivated to really start digging, even if the 
digging is all of their own doing. 

I expressed that really badly. I know. 

> (Although I remain convinced, on the basis of no actual canonical 
> evidence, that the Crouches, both Sr and Jr, were Slyths.  Given 
> Sirius' denunciation of Crouch Sr's performance in his role as a 
> battler of Darkness, however, this supposition is still hardly a 
> rousing defense of the House as a whole...)

I once tried to convert my friends and family to Crouch Sr. as a 
Slyth, and only my brother signed up. He does have the Slytherin 
characteristics, and we bleeding hearts must remember that he wasn't 
ALL bad. Wouldn't want to be caught dead living under his government, 
but.... 

We need some likeable Slyths, btw. Snape is good, but he ain't 
likeable. And the others are just unlikeably evil. Well, except for 
Riddle before he became Voldemort. He struck me as quite likeable. 
That's why he gave me the shivers. Perhaps, Mrs. Lestrange.

But good and likeable? We could go through Canon and pick out 
Slytherins from side characters. 

How about Frank Longbottom, the Slytherin?

> Has he cracked down 
> on Draco's bullying within House Slytherin (assuming, that is, that 
> Draco does bully the younger Slyth kids, which I'm sure that he 
does,
> if he's allowed to get away with it)?  Is he as unjust in his 
> administration of discipline on his own students when House 
> Gryffindor *isn't* involved?  There's just no way to know.  That 
> issue's a black box.

This might be the answer to that perennial question. With such blatant 
favouritism, how does Slytherin not win the House Cup handsdown every 
year? Perhaps, Slytherins get their dressing down in private. It would 
fit the House character as seen so far. 

BTW, is there any Canon Evidence for the strange impression I find 
myself stuck with, that Snape is much more of a presence in Slytherin 
than McGonagall in Gryffindor? One reason for McGonagall's lack of 
inclination to favouritism might be, sorry to say this, that she 
doesn't even seem to know her kids.

Now, Tabouli writes:
> And when Harry turns out to be a Parselmouth, Snape doesn't seem 
>surprised... he looks "shrewd and calculating". Does Snape know 
>something we don't? (actually, he knows a helluva lot we would dearly 
>like to know) Did he pick that spell in order because he wanted to 
>test a theory he had about Harry, or Voldemort, or the failed curse?

I had always taken it as Snape's final confirmation that Harry SHOULD 
be in Slytherin, not in Gryffindor. At least in his eyes. And, if 
Snape had suspected it for awhile, that could go a long way to 
explaining his hate of Harry. If you thought he should be in your 
house by rights, and he flippantly thwarted his destiny by objecting 
against the hat's choice, thereby perhaps endangering the future as 
you see it, you might say those bitter things about "our new 
celebrity." Harry Potter, who considered himself too good for 
Slytherin. "Crossing lines from the moment he arrived," says Snape. 
Was crossing the hat's will the first offense to Snape?  And that 
belief grows and grows, watching him displaying so many Slytherin 
qualities, until finally, Snape gets the goods on him. A parselmouth. 
Definitely should have been Slytherin.

This theory can, of course, be melded with any other one of your 
choice. Compatibility is everything. 

Elkins again:
>The fact that Rowling's taking a long
> time with Book Five really just doesn't bother me.  She'll get it 
done
> eventually, and I'm not planning on dying anytime soon, so all is 
> good, as far as I'm concerned.

Though I long to know what will happen, fear has gripped me. I want 
her to keep writing till she has it as best as it could be. I don't 
want to read it and dislike it. I just don't. Please, don't let it be 
like the time I watched Star Wars for the first time, when I was about 
11. I jumped out of my seat when Darth Vader revealed the Secret to 
Luke. The next day we got my parents to get Return of the Jedi, and I 
was so disappointed. One of those traumatizing experiences.....

Right, I won't say what I was going to say about GL. But that man 
ruined my fun.

Eileen




From andrew_macian at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 15 01:55:08 2002
From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:55:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mail Question
In-Reply-To: <a4hh2g+ml6j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020215015508.46735.qmail@web9501.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35237

Greetings from Andrew!

Just a quick note about one point...
--- grey_wolf_c <greywolf1 at jazzfree.com> wrote:

{snip}

> That said (which explains why Hermione receives
> birthday presents from 
> her parents), I believe that the Durley's presents
> are intended as 
> comic relief only, sice they're far too ridiculous
> to be true, in 
> accordance to the reality rules* created by JKR for
> HPverse 
> (interpreted by me, of course. You're free to
> disagree on the nature of 
> this "presents" and their relation to the reality
> rules; see below).
> 
> *Reality Rules: conglomerate of all rules (both
> spoken and unspoken) 
> that govern a fanasy world, as laid (willingly or
> unwillingly) by it's 
> author. 

{snip}

> Grey Wolf
> (He who just _knows_ he's going to be shouted at
> _again_ for 
> introducing OT in the main list, but just couldn't
> help himself from 
> introducing the "reality rules" concept he's working
> on at the moment)
> 
> PD: if anyone wishes to discuss Terry Pratchett's
> view of reality with 
> me, please do so privately. If anyone wishes to
> discuss my theory of 
> Reality Rules, please refrain for a while (unless to
> back it up, which 
> would be welcomed); it's still in development, if
> it's ever finished, 
> I'll post it with some canon and examples to back it
> up so you can 
> puncture it to your hearts' content)

Erm...you're aware that Scott Card (amongst others;
links to follow when I get to my computer at home) has
already done some work in this area, yes?  I point you
toward his book on how to write SF as the main
concentration of his thinking on this topic. Ben Bova
also had a series on this in 'Analog' when he was
editor, IIRC.

Also, in the mainstream, as it were, _Reality Rules_
is an excellent two volume set on using math models by
John Casti. Might be worth a look, if hard SF is up
your alley.

Cheers,

Drieux

=====
ICQ # 76184391

'Each game of chess means there's one less
      Variation left to be played;
 Each day got through means one or two less
      Mistakes remain to be made.'
      --'Chess' by Sir Tim Rice

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com



From pollux46 at hotmail.com  Fri Feb 15 02:00:41 2002
From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:00:41 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_SHIP:___Florence,_Bertha_and_C.U.P.I.D.=92S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R.?=
In-Reply-To: <a4h4e0+fnh9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4hq49+clmu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35238

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> Cindy wrote:
><snip long Florence/Bertha/Snape/Sirius theory>
>Why can't Florence be Sirius' girlfriend? Hmmm. Let's spin that for 
>a bit. If Florence if Sirius' girlfriend, then Bertha sees Snape 
>kissing Florence, who has suddenly developed an appreciation for 
>sallow skin, hooked noses and greasy hair. Well, OK. Snape curses 
>Bertha, but Sirius hears about it anyway. This <tiny snip on piece I 
will address shortly> would come up short in its effort to be a 
>motive for everything 
>Snape does -- turning DE, hating James, hating Sirius.


Errr, but that's not what I was making for at all
 How about this 
simpler take on events: Florence is Sirius' girlfriend. Bertha sees 
Sirius kissing Florence behind the greenhouses and then (in complete 
consistency with Canon and not proposing a single thing more than 
Canon tells us) teases Sirius about it. Sirius, hot-headed as he is, 
infuriated hurls a hex after her. After all who likes being spied on 
while making out with their girlfriend?


This of course leaves Snape out of things completely. Right, got to 
elaborate a bit then: The kissing scene Bertha walks in on takes 
place during the couples' first date. (All the more reason then for 
Bertha to think that she'd found out something juicy?- if it's common 
knowledge that Sirius and Florence are dating where's the teasing 
value??- and all the more reason for Sirius to get upset?more 
vulnerable, see?) And then it is through Bertha, as you suggest, that 
Snape finds out about the incident. So?, you might ask, If Snape's 
not going out with Florence why should this information bother him 
enough to start off a life?long vendetta with Sirius? Ahhh, this is 
where C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. comes in! Poor Snape you see has a 
* huge* crush on Florence! Consequently, though she may not * 
objectively* be his girlfriend, she is so * in his mind*! And because 
he really doesn't have any right to hold winning Florence against 
Sirius he naturally does so with a vengeance! Why? For the same 
reason he hates James for being good at Quidditch. That's just the 
way Snape works! Black has everything AND the girl Snape had his eye 
on! Grrrrr!!!


Cindy again:


>That said, we do need someone to devise a theory for why Sirius 
hates 
>Snape so much. This is more than just the hatred Sirius has at the 
>end of GoF. For some reason, Sirius hated Snape enough to play the 
>Prank, but I haven't seen a LOLLIPOPS, George, CUPIDSBLUDGER, 
Prince, 
>Mercy, Mercy II type of explanation that I find compelling. Any 
>takers?


I think I'll accept that challenge! C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. can 
indeed explain this puzzle even if it is with just a biiiiiiiiit of a 
stretch... Watch it:


Florence, an all-round amiable, fair and commendable character, 
serves one more purpose in the books: To repudiate the Good Guys 
assessment stated early on in the books (this is an all-encompassing 
and extremely ambitious theory you see, that takes on the solution of 
all HP questions, problems and inconsistencies ; -)) that "there's 
not a wizard that went bad that didn't come from Slytherin". How does 
she accomplish this? By making fast friends with Severus Snape of 
course! Oooohh! How do you think Sirius is going to take to that? Not 
well would be my bet! The first girl he actually has a real interest 
in and she goes off gallivanting with that walking, talking, slime-
dripping Encyclopedia on hexes! And what's more the putrid little 
weasel has the nerve to go around * making passes* at her! Grrrrr!


Ta da! Now we've got both parties nicely snarling at each other!


And so I come to The Prank. 


I wrote:

>And then you've got the Prank. Somehow (Why, oh, why I 
>wonder!) "Well, the slimeball didn't wash his hair enough so he 
>deserved it" doesn't cut it for me. There's got to be something more 
>there. Sooooo...cherchez la femme!
>
>
> Now I realize throwing your rivals in love to hungry 
>werewolves is not exactly a morally acceptable way of getting rid of 
>them, but at least this theory leaves gives room for more backstory 
>on the incident, a *real* explanation of it,so to speak.


What I meant by this (though this is not necessarily to be understood 
by my wonderfully clear phraseology) was that maybe The Prank was 
merely the last and most precarious of a whole series of rivaling, 
macho-exhibiting attempts of the two boys to prove themselves 
errrr... "worthier" than the other.


Once more Cindy:


>Why would Sirius go after Snape's girlfriend? Because (and this is 
>difficult to admit because it goes against my SINISTER instincts) 
>Sirius is just plain not nice.


Been meaning to ask this for a long time: What exactly does SINISTER 
stand for?



On a totally different tread Marina wrote:


>And this is the point where Snape becomes someone I respect, see,
>because most people in such a situation would drop-kick philosophical
>considerations right out the door.  I mean really, how many people
>live their day-to-day lives following a philosophical principle?  
Most
>of us just live following our natural inclinations, and because our
>natural inclinations fall within the bounds of what society finds
>acceptable, we manage to muddle through somehow.  Snape, OTOH, went
>and threw his lot in with people he's naturally inclined to despise,
>because he decided that *they were right.  And he risked his life
>doing it, too.  I mean... wow.



Just like to state that I like this view on Snape. I do think that he 
is what you might call * deep*. He thinks. And he chooses. And he is 
in his thoughts and choices a most unique person. He lives by a code?
not a code constructed by his social environs, but one he has built 
by himself and for himself and that is in fact not accepted by 
anybody else. It needs some backbone to do that, you know! And a 
great deal of belief-in-self too. Snape has set himself apart from 
and against the rest of the world and this is both pitiful and 
admirable. And yes, though I do not necessarily applause all his 
choices, Snape does earn my respect.




(Note that at least in my opinion neither C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. 
nor L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. as I understand it, claim that Passion for 
Unknown Damsel needs be the only reson behind Severus' deliverance 
from evil ways. It is merely the final nudge in the right direction. 
Feel free to think otherwise if you're not too fond of George.)

Return to Cindy:

> Why, you're welcome, and good luck on the tests!
> 
> Cindy

Thanks! I'll need it!

Charis Julia at last gives up and heads off to a very inviting bed
 
                                                                      
                                           snore

 





From theennead at attbi.com  Fri Feb 15 02:24:47 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 02:24:47 -0000
Subject: FLIRTIAC  and the Marauder's Map
In-Reply-To: <002601c1b373$8552eda0$2a0adccb@price>
Message-ID: <a4hrhf+e2b3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35239

> At last! (Tabouli dabs at happy tears). Spurned and smiled at 
> indulgently forall these months, FLIRTIAC finally has a genuine 
> supporter! 

Two, Tabouli.  You have two of them now.  No amount of whining and 
wheedling and cajoling could convince my husband to accept for a 
moment my Fourth Man Theory (hmppph!), but one brief run-down of 
FLIRTIAC, and he was clambering into your dinghy.

Er...so to speak.

And as to why Mrs. Norris' first name wouldn't show up on the 
Marauder's Map -- why she's not, say, "Annie Norris" or something 
like that -- I say that's because the Marauder's Map is (like so much 
else in the Wizarding World) a little bit archaic.  According to 
proper Victorian etiquette, a woman's first name is *never* used 
along with the prefix "Mrs."  Her husband's name is used instead.

So why doesn't the Marauder's Map show her as, say, "Mrs. Cepheus 
Norris" then?

Well, because Mr. Norris has since remarried, that's why!  "Mrs. 
Cepheus Norris" is technically his *current* wife's proper nomen.  
His estranged ex-wife is still entitled to use his name -- and 
indeed, to refer to her by her maiden name without her consent would 
be a very dire insult, as that would imply that she herself in some 
way bore the culpability for the estrangement -- but to distinguish 
her from Cepheus' current wife, she is referred to simply as "Mrs. 
Norris."

<Elkins nods firmly to herself, not without a certain degree of self-
satisfaction, and lights another cigarette>

Tabouli wrote:

> Could the cat shape be a curse Mr Norris put on his cheating wife, 
> which he maliciously set up so that it could only be broken by 
> Filch himself?

I like that theory a great deal.  It's really really really *mean,* 
for starters, and you *know* what an absolute *brute* I can sometimes 
be. 

<Elkins absently claws a few stray owl feathers out of her hair, 
glances down at them, and then tosses them, with a slight shudder, 
into a nearby tide-pool>

But then, I love Mrs. Norris.  It always irks me somewhat that the 
kids all hate her so.  I mean, I can see why they have a problem with 
Filch -- he's scary, and he's mean, and he gives nasty detentions, 
and he threatens them with torture in his creepy old office -- but 
what's poor Mrs. Norris ever done to them?  So she glares balefully 
at them, so what?  So she rats them out to Filch.  That's her *job,* 
for heaven's sakes!  And just think of all of those times she stares 
right at Harry in his Invisibility Cloak, and then *doesn't* alert 
Filch to his presence.  She's cutting Harry slack all the time, if 
you ask me, and the rotten little kid doesn't even appreciate it.

> (Tabouli, suspecting that most listmembers are by now well and 
> truly tired of her voluminous defences of her favorite ship,
> flourishes her last two LOLLIPOPS)

<concerned look>

Oh, dear.  I hope that my teasing wasn't part of what gave you that 
impression.  Teasing, like prank-pulling, is all too easy to "get 
wrong," especially in a forum that allows for no observation of body 
language or facial expression.  If I came across genuinely 
exasperated -- or worse, as hostile -- then I do apologize.  And just 
for the record, I always really enjoy reading your LOLLIPOPS defenses.

-- Elkins, wondering if a FLIRTIAC post really needs to be prefaced 
with a SHIP warning.




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Fri Feb 15 03:11:06 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:11:06 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: anti-SHIP: Ginny griping
References: <a4hj23+u8v5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000e01c1b5ce$68f8a2a0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 35240

<snip out me ranting about "people like Ginny">

KIMBERLY:
>Dude, woah Nelly and what the-?
>Are we still talking about Ginny or is there some (major) projection 
>going on here?  Who are these "people like Ginny" and how exactly are 
>they like her (and what did they do to you, you poor thing?)? 
[...]
>It's this third scenario that I understand as a reason to not care 
>for the character because I admit that some of my fondness for her is 
>possibly extratextual, or at least as much inferred as implied.  
>Under this scenario, certainly she can't be this diabolical and 
>dangerous person that "people like her" are, so I'm really lost.  
>So please can you explain what you mean by "people such as she", 
>because maybe there's a new category to add to the "reasons I hate 
>Ginny" list.  Or to be more precise, I guess basically my question 
>is - huh?

*blushes* okay, I was getting really rant-y there. I'm really, *really* sorry if I offended anyone.  I needn't have gotten so, erm..personal about it all. *hopeful smile* Please don't hate me.

What I was really trying to say was that from what little characterization we have of Ginny in canon, I have come to view her as a certain sort of stereotype.  Ignoring any problems I have with people that come under this stereotype IRL *sheepish grin*, I was trying to point out that Ginny, while she may be *genuinely* a sweet girl, also has many flaws that can cause allot of harm to herself and the people around her. Many people seem find Ginny to be harmless, but in my opinion, the qualities that make her such a sweet girl can also be dangerous in certain situations.

Furthermore, it kind of irks me when people assume that the majority of young girls are like Ginny.  I wasn't, and allot of my friends weren't either.  

Also, in case you haven't noticed, I tend to get a little snippish when people insult Hermione. *ducks head* Again, I'm sorry, I was out of line.  If anyone feels the need to have me grovel at their feet, I'm all for it.

laura


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





From dumbledore94 at hotmail.com  Fri Feb 15 00:54:59 2002
From: dumbledore94 at hotmail.com (andrea mcpherson talia chambers)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:54:59 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Percy, death(Re:WAS SHIP R/H and P/P
Message-ID: <F168EzmXwgwCyCnspQZ00002b22@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35241




>
>---Andrea wrote (originally):

> > I completely agree that Percy will die.

      Eileen wrote:
>
>Woohoo! I mean..... yes. Sad. Really sad. I'll be crying, but I'm
>thrilled you agree with me.
>        <snip>
>
> > Reason 2) He worships Crouch Sr. Now that Crouch Sr.( and Jr. for
>
>that
> > matter) is/are dead, who else is left for poor old Weatherby? He
>
>could
> > easily go for cowardly (a lot of Dark Characters are cowards. JKR
>
>implies
> > cowardice as "NO,NO!") Fudge (gasp! or perhaps
>
>He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named?)
> >

>     Andrea wrote (again):( feb. 14th )

I don't think I made myself clear on this point. I couldn't imagine Percy 
following V! I meant that he somehow might get tricked into it.( Like what 
you mentioned about ministry DE's.) Sorry for foggy reason.

          Eileen wrote:

>I can't see valiant Percy purposely following You-Know-Who. He
>doesn't fit the profile, imho. But I can see him getting taken in by
>all those DEs working at the ministry.
>
>Reasons why Percy is Valiant (for those who are already snickering)
>
>1. Became Prefect in fifth form, telling people much older what to
>do, and enforcing it. You need guts for that.
>2. Raced off to deal with the DEs in GOF, and came back bleeding.
>3. Patrolled the dangerous corridors in Chamber of Secrets.

> > Don't get me wrong... I love Percy... just in a "let's kill 'em and
>
>make the
> > plot more interesting" sorta way.=)

     Andrea wrote (again):

And I stand by what I wrote above. But I would like to take this oppurtunity 
to write a bit more about my fav former Prefect.  First of all, I must admit 
I'm a Hermione fanatic. Percy and Hermione usually get along well 
together.... except the House Elf thing in GoF. I think Percy could be a bit 
*nicer* to House Elves.I'm not asking for wages from him, like Hermione,( 
besides, I don't want to get into that captivating and complicated thread 
right now)just nicer.And maybe he could loosen up a  BIT. Just a bit. Those 
are pretty minor flaws though, in comparison to other characters. Other than 
those, Percy is doing GREAT! I don't want Percy dead right away though, I'd 
like him to have some more on-screen time and character development. So , 
that's my 2 cents,pence- whatever it is to you- it'll definitely be a 
chapter to get my book wet- you know what I mean.=( Boo Hoo =(
>
>   Andrea ( who thinks Percy and Hermione should spend more time together. 
>Ship? I don't think so. Friends. Yes. {If you have any reasons for a P/H 
>ship, PLEASE enlighten me.)
>




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





From gideoner4 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 14 23:56:23 2002
From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (gideoner4)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 23:56:23 -0000
Subject: wizard entertainment
Message-ID: <a4hir7+sgjd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35242

 Hello! I have a few thoughts in mind that I assume 
 some/many of you have thought before...
 
 My sister and I wonder what kind of entertainment the wizarding 
 world has. There was no mention of theaters, TV (at least magic   
TV), and movies (if muggles can have movies, wizards can have too). 
There was mention of wizarding wireless though (and the singing 
sorceress Celestina Warbeck). But aside from that, what could be the 
wizard equivalent of movie, TV, and theater?
 
 And what about the computer? I mean, they have magic! Surely they 
have something like the internet?
 
 Yeah I have too much time in my hands, but I just can't help but 
think about it. It seems that the wizarding world is rather old-
fashioned and a bit outdated. 
 
 But I still love it though. :D


"gideoner4"




From tanie_05 at hotmail.com  Fri Feb 15 04:11:55 2002
From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 04:11:55 -0000
Subject: Head Boy & Head Girl????
In-Reply-To: <a4gr9e+nvgi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4i1qb+l872@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35243

Hey Grey Wolf & Kyli,
Thanks for trying but I still don't get it. IDK, maybe it'll say in 
another book or somebody else knows. But thank you very much for 
stopping by & reading this.
-Kyrstyne




From love2write_11098 at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 15 04:23:02 2002
From: love2write_11098 at yahoo.com (love2write_11098)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 04:23:02 -0000
Subject: Hermione's name
Message-ID: <a4i2f6+aj1q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35244

I assume this has probably already been discussed -- with two years 
in between books, has anything NOT been discussed? -- but I'm in a 
Women's Lit class and the other day my teacher mentioned <i>A 
Winter's Tale</i>, which of course has a character named Hermione -- 
the lead female role, actually. AWT, according to my teacher, is 
<i>Othello</i> with a happy ending, and I've often heard that 
Hermione is one of Shakespeare's better female characters (as opposed 
to, say, the tragic figures of Desdemona and Ophelia). But AWT has a 
love triangle, which is quite possibly what we are facing in HP, and 
I was wondering if anyone knew of an instance when someone had asked 
JKR about the significance of Hermione's name? We've seen the 
significance she likes to give names, and that seems to be a logical 
origin for Hermione's. Perhaps someone who's read AWT could give us 
some details?

Stacy




From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 15 04:38:00 2002
From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 04:38:00 -0000
Subject: Hermione's name
In-Reply-To: <a4i2f6+aj1q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4i3b8+pobb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35245

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "love2write_11098" 
> I was wondering if anyone knew of an instance when someone had 
asked 
> JKR about the significance of Hermione's name? 

Here's what the Lexicon says about Hermione's name, according to JKR:

JKR chose the name Hermione from a Shakespeare play, "A Winter's 
Tale," although she says that the characters are not at all similar. 
She thought it made sense for a couple of professional dentists to 
name their only daughter something like that to show how clever they 
were. But she chose a very unusual name because she worried that, if 
there were a real child somewhere who was bright and had larger-than-
usual front teeth that had the same name, she might get teased. 
(NPC) 

That "NPC" at the end indicates that this is from the ROwling's 
appearance at the National Press Club.

Steve
The Lexicon




From dradamsapple at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 15 04:05:49 2002
From: dradamsapple at yahoo.com (anna jones)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 20:05:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Over Fry, Over Dale, As they read us Potter's tale!
In-Reply-To: <17c.38ee12c.299cb5df@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20020215040549.30484.qmail@web20406.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35246

hello fellow grownups!
so glad to have found this group (i was beginning to
think I was  the only one out there . . .)

anyhow, considering the fact that I first "read" HP by
listening to Jim Dale, I just had to respond to this.

My son got the books like the rest of the world and
then purchased the cd's with his own birthday money. I
decided listening to them was a good way of me filling
in the blanks from when I read a few chapters to him
and my daughter; I WAS HOOKED!
I just can't say enough about Jim Dale! He deserves an
award for keeping all the characterizations consistant
throughout all four books.
Not to say that I wouldn't want to listen to "Fry",
but honestly I wasn't aware that there even was
another audio version.  I have only seen the "Jim
Dale" version.
Where does one get the "Fry" version and what is
his/her full name?
anna

--- Whirdy at aol.com wrote:
> Having invested in both the Dale and the Fry
> renditions I have decided to 
> undertake listening to Dale read SS while I scan
> along with PS and listening 
> to Fry read PS while I scan SS and so on for the
> rest of the Potterverse.
> 
> Only then will I be sure that I have found all of
> the Englican/Amerish 
> substitutions that some well meaning but deluded
> editors believed necessary.
> 
> I would suggest, however, that whichever version one
> might chose to buy, the 
> listener will not be disappointed.  He or she will
> surely learn something 
> that was missed in their own reading and gain some
> enjoyment and insight.
> 
> In this day of the TV and instant messages one
> forgets the power, mystery and 
> thrill of hearing a story teller weave magic with
> the human voice.  Now if 
> only we were at the edge of the Forbidden Forest
> sitting toasting 
> marshmallows in that magic blue fire  and listening
> . . .
> 
> whirdy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Got something to say? Say it better with Yahoo! Video Mail 
http://mail.yahoo.com




From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com  Fri Feb 15 08:35:03 2002
From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 08:35:03 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Over Fry, Over Dale, As they read us Potter's tale!
References: <20020215040549.30484.qmail@web20406.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <003901c1b5fb$aae15f40$929abc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 35247


Not to say that I wouldn't want to listen to "Fry",
but honestly I wasn't aware that there even was
another audio version.  I have only seen the "Jim
Dale" version.
Where does one get the "Fry" version and what is
his/her full name?
anna


Sean also admires Jim Dale so I am becoming more intrigued about his interpretation of the books each day.  As far as I can make out, Stephen Fry (well known as an actor and general all round genius here in the U.K.) is the European interpreter of JKR's books and Jim Dale covers the American book versions (I believe some words have been changed - an expert on the U.S./U.K. differences could probably help here).  There are many non-english versions of the book but, as far as I know, no non-English audio tapes.  Amazon would probably ship the (recommended) U.K. version?

Felicia Rickmann




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





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Fri Feb 15 09:43:16 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:43:16 -0000
Subject: wizard entertainment
In-Reply-To: <a4hir7+sgjd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4il7k+vm2c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35248

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "gideoner4" <gideoner4 at y...> wrote:
>  Hello! I have a few thoughts in mind that I assume 
>  some/many of you have thought before...
>  
>  My sister and I wonder what kind of entertainment the wizarding 
>  world has. There was no mention of theaters, TV (at least magic   
> TV), and movies (if muggles can have movies, wizards can have too). 
> There was mention of wizarding wireless though (and the singing 
> sorceress Celestina Warbeck). But aside from that, what could be the 
> wizard equivalent of movie, TV, and theater?
>  
>  And what about the computer? I mean, they have magic! Surely they 
> have something like the internet?
>  
>  Yeah I have too much time in my hands, but I just can't help but 
> think about it. It seems that the wizarding world is rather old-
> fashioned and a bit outdated. 
>  
>  But I still love it though. :D
> 
> 
> "gideoner4"

There is no mention in canon of anything that would work like a 
computer (no computer games for wizards, sorry!) but there have been 
some rumours flying around about a wizard equivalent to Internet, 
although I don't remember if it's got any meat on it (MAYBE it was said 
by JKR in an interview, but don't quote me on that). Other forms of 
entertainement will include "television" (in the greco-roman sense of 
seing things from a distance), since I doubt very many people would 
follow their quidditch teams all over britain to follow the league. We 
know they've got radio (you mentioned it yourself), and they've got 
newspapers. As far as I can see that's about as far as entertainment 
goes. However, we haven't seen any wizard house appart from the 
Weasleys's, and maybe more solvent households have other forms of 
entertainment.

Hope that helps

Grey Wolf





From lucy at luphen.co.uk  Fri Feb 15 09:57:21 2002
From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:57:21 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Head Boy & Head Girl????
References: <a4gr9e+nvgi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <014f01c1b607$29851b60$b0ae1e3e@stephen>

No: HPFGUIDX 35249

>Kyrstyne asked:

>Hey everyone. I just have a quick question. How many Head Boys & Head 
Girls are there at one time? I thought there was one of each, but I 
read something on the Internet that makes it sound like there's one 
in each House. Please help me out!!! Thanks!!

I would imagine that there is one Head Boy and one Head Girl each year, picked from the Prefects in the top form. That's how it works in most English public schools, which seems to the model JKR usually takes.

Lucy the Drifty


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




From j.balfour at lmu.ac.uk  Fri Feb 15 10:05:31 2002
From: j.balfour at lmu.ac.uk (booleanfox)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:05:31 -0000
Subject: An old-fashioned discussion
Message-ID: <a4imhb+e9ag@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35250

I would be interested to know what everybody's favourite non-
wizarding character is, and why?

For the record, mine is Dobby, which I believe will be an unpopular 
choice, but I think he's very funny, very loyal to Harry and his 
friends and of course is a bit of a dobber!

Jules






From fordpr1020 at aol.com  Fri Feb 15 10:11:48 2002
From: fordpr1020 at aol.com (thefortressiserlohn)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:11:48 -0000
Subject: Over Fry, Over Dale, As they read us Potter's tale!
In-Reply-To: <003901c1b5fb$aae15f40$929abc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>
Message-ID: <a4imt4+tfml@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35251

>here).  There are many non-english versions of the book but, as far 
>as I know, no non-English audio tapes.  Amazon would probably ship 
>the (recommended) U.K. version?

There is a set of tapes/cd's for all of the german books - i have a 
copy of the PS one.  I like the narrator a LOT better than Dale, 
haven't heard Fry...now if only I knew my German well enough to not 
be running solely on general idea and actually understanding 
everything...

--jc
who has delurked long enough to post before leaving town for the 
weekend but also wanted to throw in his two sickels for the 
LANDLUBBERS.




From catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk  Fri Feb 15 10:24:59 2002
From: catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk (catorman)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:24:59 -0000
Subject: anti-SHIP: Ginny griping
In-Reply-To: <000e01c1b5ce$68f8a2a0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a4inlr+i7q6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35252

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" <huntleyl at m...> wrote:
> <snip out me ranting about "people like Ginny">

Kimberly wrote:
> >So please can you explain what you mean by "people such as she", 
> >because maybe there's a new category to add to the "reasons I hate 
> >Ginny" list.  Or to be more precise, I guess basically my question 
> >is - huh?

I'd like to second the huh.

Many people seem find Ginny to be harmless, but in my opinion, the 
qualities that make her such a sweet girl can also be dangerous in 
certain situations.

Before I go into my usual rant about why I don't think Ginny's 
character deserves stereotyping in such a way, I'd be very interested 
as to what exactly you mean by the above statement.  Which qualities 
make her dangerous in certain situations.

> Also, in case you haven't noticed, I tend to get a little snippish 
when people insult Hermione. *ducks head* Again, I'm sorry, I was out 
of line.  If anyone feels the need to have me grovel at their feet, 
I'm all for it.

Not necessary, but it is possible to be a fan of both Ginny and 
Hermione, you know - I certainly am.

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




From taradiane at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 15 11:44:00 2002
From: taradiane at yahoo.com (taradiane)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 03:44:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: An old-fashioned discussion
In-Reply-To: <1013767955.860.83331.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020215114400.85717.qmail@web11501.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35253


>From: "booleanfox" <j.balfour at lmu.ac.uk>
>Subject: An old-fashioned discussion

>I would be interested to know what everybody's 
>favourite non-
>wizarding character is, and why?

That's easy - Hedwig!  I've always thought owls to be mysterious creatures, so imagine my delight to find them all over the pages of the Potter books! 
As for why - well, lots of reasons really.  All her affectionate nips, she can be moody as h*ll, and as loyal as Ron and Hermione are.  And finally, sometimes she visits Harry *just because* (remembering the bit in SS/PS where there's nothing to deliver but she comes for a visit anyway).  I siriusly hope Harry's future animagus form is that of an owl, so they can go frolicking into the moonlight together ;-) 
Tara


@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@
"If I was ever required to do anything other than 
look haunted, I could.  I'm a happy person. 
Though I don't, like, dot my "I's" with hearts or 
anything - that would be too happy."
Daniel Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter
http://www.efanguide.com/~radcliffe/index.html


---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Got something to say? Say it better with Yahoo! Video Mail

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




From saitaina at wizzards.net  Fri Feb 15 12:56:26 2002
From: saitaina at wizzards.net (Saitaina)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 04:56:26 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] An old-fashioned discussion
References: <a4imhb+e9ag@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001401c1b620$2eebd260$034e28d1@saitaina>

No: HPFGUIDX 35254

My top favorite has to be the two most un-popular everywhere.  Peter
Pettigrew and Tom "Lord Voldemort Riddle.

I like Peter because he's human.  He's one of the most real characters I
have scene in the books and I like that.  I feel sorry for the guy...he made
a huge mistake and now he has to pay for it eternally.

I like Tom because...well, as I've said before, Power is attractive.  He
fascinates me.  He's so angry against his father's people that it intrigues
me to see if there's anything that will ever incite his mercies.  I know
he's evil and really bad but I still can't help picturing an ending where
he's still around and doesn't die.

As for other favorites, they are, as follows with a short description as to
why.

Lucius and Draco Malfoy, like Tom,  intrigue me.  They have so much
potential to go either way.  Alright, Lucius is most likely stuck on the
Dark side but there's always a slim chance he could switch...right?.
Neville Long bottom is a sweetie that I can't help but like.  A little
bumbling but still. He's sweet and sensitive and his tale is so heart
breaking.  Seamus Finnigan is my little leprechaun.  I don't know why but
for a little known character he's grown on me.  I actually scan every
mention of Gryffindors to find him.  Another character like that is Justin
FF.  He's like every new kid you've ever known.  Scared, worried about how
others will accept him.  So when he first meets the Famous Harry Potter he
rambles on and on.  I felt worse for Justin in CoS then I did Harry.  And of
course, last but not least in my favorite characters is Percy Weasley.
Percy was the image of me in school, bookish and bossy, always looking out
for the younger students to the effect they wanted to strangle me.  I may
have never made his grades but it wasn't for lack of trying.  I was also a
complete and stuffy snob from the age of 14 to 17 and no one could stand me
so there you go.  I also wanted to be president once upon a time and we all
know Percy's secret ambition. :o)


Saitaina
*****
Also Doing: Watching Alexi/role-playing
Last Movie Seen: Harry Potter and the Sorcer's Stone (3rd time)
Last TV Show Seen: "Men's Freeskate: Olympics"
Current Book-"The Lunatic Cafe"




From Edblanning at aol.com  Fri Feb 15 13:12:18 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 08:12:18 EST
Subject: More Snape /Pettigrew and a bit of Percy (was: Did Snape recruit Pettigrew)
Message-ID: <12b.c5ee91c.299e6332@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35255

In a message dated 07/02/02 19:03:25 GMT Standard Time, cindysphynx at home.com 
writes:

> The timeline also raises the possibility that Snape recruited Peter 
> into the Death Eaters in 1979.  You know, Snape would have told Peter 
> things like Sirius and James never respected you, you are always 
> second fiddle with them, join us, you can be a star on our team, 
> blah, blah, blah.  I can't make it work (yet) because I can't think 
> of any plausible way Snape knows that Peter is a Death Eater, doesn't 
> tell Dumbledore, and lets James, Lily and Sirius switch to Peter.  
> The only thing that comes to mind is that Snape doesn't want to admit 
> to Dumbledore his role in recruiting Peter (much the way Lupin 
> refuses to admit the werewolf adventures to Dumbledore), but I'm not 
> sold

Actually, I don't think we have to get too hung up on this as a problem 
regarding Pettigrew's *recruitment*: it's already potentially a problem in 
its own right. If Snape and Pettigrew were DEs at the same time (and they 
were to all intents and purposes, even if Snape's loyalty by the end lay with 
Dumbledore), then either
a) Snape knows this and fails to inform Dumbledore that one of James' best 
friends is a DE, which seems unlikely, particularly if we accept the theory 
that it was Snape who knew of and informed Dumbledore of a plot against the 
Potters. Or,
b) Snape doesn't know Pettigrew is a DE, which shows that the DEs do in fact 
operate in different cells and do not know all the others' identities. In 
which case, as I argued, Snape could have sowed the seeds which led to 
Pettigrew's defection without knowing that he had finally succumbed.

I think there may be further evidence that the DEs do not all know each other 
if I am right that Pettigrew's faking of his own death was necessitated by 
the fact that some of the other DEs knew he was a rat animagus. Otherwise it 
begs the question of why Snape doesn't know. I know he wasn't in the most 
receptive of moods in the Shrieking Shack, but you would think he might have 
done the smallest of double-takes when told to 'look at the rat'. 

Right, Percy

Renewed speculation about his name on the list.
I have several thoughts.
1) It's a rather pompous sort of name, a bit ridiculous (sounds foppish, I 
think) in a young Englishman these days (although it could be working class, 
a couple of generations ago). Percy is certainly pompous.
2) There's the knightly, Sir Percival connection. Well, I certainly hope that 
Percy lives up to Gryffindor's reputation, though I'm a bit worried that he 
is going to be taken in, at least temporarily, by the forces of darkness. 
(Only because he gets lost in red tape and ministry dogma).
3) A third Sir Percy came to me in the bath this morning. (Well, not 
literally, unfortunately, but you can't have everything!)
Remember the Scarlet Pimpernal, Sir Percy Blakeney? There's an unlikely hero, 
someone no-one suspected of heroism, appearing to be hopelessly ineffectual 
and to have no sense of what was going on, but who got on with it quietly and 
secretly. Perhaps this is what our Percy will do. 

Eloise


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




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Fri Feb 15 13:24:51 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 00:24:51 +1100
Subject: LOLLIPOPS: Grey Snape as Yin (Lily as Yang?)
Message-ID: <002901c1b624$4de648e0$da30c2cb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35256

Eileen (quoting Elkins, I think):
>>I tend to see (Snape) as someone whose *impulses* all lead him in one unerring 
>> direction -- but in a direction that he has chosen to reject on 
>> abstract and purely philosophical grounds.  In other words, I see him 
>> as a Dark Wizard.  In instinct.  In impulse.  In inclination.  To 
>> some extent, perhaps even in essence.  But by choosing not to act on 
>> those instincts and inclinations and tastes and desires, he manages 
>> to be something slightly different.  Grey.
>
> You see, your analysis 
that strikes me as completely true is rather at odds with my own 
attachment to LOLLIPOPS. I'll have to think about this one awhile. But 
unlike Ambush theories, which can be modified and reorganized to suit 
anyone, they may be unreconciliable. Captain Tabouli, help! I feel 
this uncontrollable urge to jump ship, to this nice little rowboat of 
Elkins's. A warm fuzzy voice is sounding in my mind. "Jump! Jump!"<

(Tabouli sounds the on-board bugle to drown the warm fuzzy voice in Eileen's mind, and summons her sternly to the captain's cabin)

Now haaaang on a minute here.  Being unable to read the minds of my crew, I don't know what anyone's personal version of LOLLIPOPS is, but again, I must remind people that my ship is large and cosmopolitan and easily, *easily* accommodates Elkins' vision of Snape of the dark instincts diluted to grey.  In fact, my very own Snape bio implies this view.  Let's try the all-day sucker version of LOLLIPOPS, which makes Lily pivotal in everything.  Snape was bitter and vengeful and bearing the entire Samboy factory on his shoulders, right?  (er, just in case this is too Aussie a metaphor to be understood, Samboy is a brand of potato chips).  He turned up at 11 knowing lots of curses, hung out with other children leaning into the Darkness, and ultimately became a Death Eater.  I'd say that gives him some pretty clear Dark tendencies, wouldn't you?

*However*, there's just one teensy problem... he's in love with Lily. His gang are appalled (a sentimental attachment to a spawn of the Enemy House??  For shame, Severus!)  She stood up for him against the Marauders' ridicule out of a principle of kindness and fairness, melting a corner of Snape's Dark, twisted heart, and, somewhere, rather shaming him.  She can stand out against her friends for him, and isn't likely to think much of him being taunted into submission by peer group pressure, so he tries to conceal his crush and, when it inevitably leaks to his gang, he bristles away their condemnation.  He wants Lily's good opinion more than anything, and is smart enough to realise that a strong, principled, kind girl isn't likely to be impressed by his precocious talent with Crucio and his skills with persecution and put-downs.  He suppresses his Darkness.  He tries to prove himself worthy, trying to excel in Potions (a class where Slytherin and Gryffindor combine), trying to show her his good side, and discovering, to his surprise, that he does have one, somewhere under the vengeance and cruelty.  Becoming, in effect, GREY.

When she marries James, this motivation ceases in a black cloud of fury, and Snape turns back to the darkness for avenues to vent his torment.  Yet having witnessed and admired her strength and kindness so much has left its mark on Snape.  Even as he relishes the torture of Muggles and slaughter of V's enemies, some little part of him becomes more and more uneasy.  The plot to kill the Potters is the last straw, thrusting Snape's own actions and their effects into relief so horrible that he changes sides, embracing the puddle of light in his Dark soul and returning to Dumbledore.

Perhaps a better way of putting this than calling Snape "grey" (though I like the grey Snape concept) is to think of Snape as Yin in the yin yang (says the inscrutable Tabouli, embracing her semi-Asian roots, donning brocaded robes, and expounding words of sweeping Oriental wisdom like a sage in a bad faux Sinophile movie).  A circle of Light in a tadpole of Dark.  Love of Lily compelled him into the circle of his better self.  When she left, he retreated back into darkness, but with new visions lingering from his moment in the light which troubled him more and more until he realised he could bear it no longer and stepped back into the spotlight where he crouches still, Dark pressing in from all sides, both outside and inside his tormented wizard soul...

Captain Tabouli (declaiming beside a smoke machine and considering the adoption of a two strand moustache...)

P.S.
Eileen:
> I'm trying to work hard on developing the ability to see it as 
it's supposed to be seen, just for the sake of understanding people, 
but in such cases, I often feel like a blind person hearing talk about 
colours. <

Ooo!  I'd been dying all my life to ask a born-blind person about colours, and I finally got the chance a few years ago when I made a blind friend.  His comments were fascinating, albeit to be discussed on OT...


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




From Whirdy at aol.com  Fri Feb 15 13:26:05 2002
From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 08:26:05 EST
Subject: Owls [HPforGrownups]  An old-fashioned discussion
Message-ID: <fb.21aeb471.299e666d@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35257

In a message dated 2/15/02 6:44:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
taradiane at yahoo.com writes:


> - Hedwig!  I've always thought owls to be mysterious creatures, 

To me the mystery is, given their physical configuration, how do owls sleep 
with their heads under their wings, a la Errol and Hedwig in PoA.  It would 
seem to be a bit uncomfortable.

whirdy


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




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Fri Feb 15 13:38:11 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:38:11 -0000
Subject: An old-fashioned discussion
In-Reply-To: <a4imhb+e9ag@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4j303+trns@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35258

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "booleanfox" <j.balfour at l...> wrote:
> I would be interested to know what everybody's favourite non-
> wizarding character is, and why?
> 

Crookshanks.  Totally.  Because I'm a cat person, and because he was
so brave and smart and loyal in PoA -- truly a fitting familiar for
Hermione.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From devin.smither at yale.edu  Fri Feb 15 13:40:02 2002
From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:40:02 -0000
Subject: An old-fashioned discussion
In-Reply-To: <a4imhb+e9ag@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4j33i+mavq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35259

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "booleanfox" <j.balfour at l...> wrote:
> I would be interested to know what everybody's favourite non-
> wizarding character is, and why?

Ooohhhh, tough one.  I think I'll go with Crookshanks on this one.  I 
really like cats (and I suppose therefore half-Kneazles) in general, 
and I like the fact that he was a very suspicious character and then 
it came out that he was doing very good things.  I also like the fact 
that he can be viewed as pretty ugly (flat face, etc.) but that the 
ugliness hides goodness on the inside.  Crookshanks, he's just got a 
lot of vivacity and spirit and has a more active role in the 
mysteries (well, at least one of them) than say Hedwig.  I guess 
that's the sum of it.




From midwife34 at aol.com  Fri Feb 15 13:44:03 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:44:03 -0000
Subject: An old-fashioned discussion
In-Reply-To: <a4j303+trns@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4j3b3+vquq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35260

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "booleanfox" <j.balfour at l...> wrote:
> > I would be interested to know what everybody's favourite non-
> > wizarding character is, and why?
> > 
> 
> I have to say Uncle Vernon is my favorite. Doesn't he remind you of 
some of the bosses you have had? He is so clueless as to how stupid 
he is, great for comic relief, and you can just imagine what fun you 
would have making fun of him behind his back. Once you figured out 
his weaknesses, you could do any number of little things to 
psychologically torture him, like tying a fishing line to a styrofoam 
cup, and making it supposedly float past his office door, or fake 
poltergeist activity in his office......lololol.


jo ellen




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Fri Feb 15 14:07:45 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 01:07:45 +1100
Subject: Mrs Norris and Marauder's Map musings (c/o FLIRTIAC)
Message-ID: <003d01c1b62a$43b06580$da30c2cb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35261

Elkins:
> No amount of whining and 
wheedling and cajoling could convince my husband to accept for a 
moment my Fourth Man Theory (hmppph!), but one brief run-down of 
FLIRTIAC, and he was clambering into your dinghy.<

(Tabouli beams at such wisdom.  Elkins, a woman of fine taste in husbands).

Elkins:
> And as to why Mrs. Norris' first name wouldn't show up on the 
Marauder's Map -- why she's not, say, "Annie Norris" or something 
like that -- I say that's because the Marauder's Map is (like so much 
else in the Wizarding World) a little bit archaic.<

I wonder.  An easy way out is that it's a plot escape hatch - JKR wants to mention, very casually and almost missably, that the cat shows up on the map, and FLINTs it by either bending the rules a tiny bit to conceal her hand or having Harry not take enough notice because it's not very interesting or relevant to him at the time (Huh?  Mrs Annie Norris?  *shrug* must be the cat's full name, and good, she and Filch and Snape are out of the way, the coast's clear)(or maybe he doesn't look too closely at the name, just sees a mini dust-coloured cat, knows who it is, and doesn't bother to look closely)

Another escape hatch is that the Map, being a magical device, only shows magical people (Squibs included - I see them as a kind of defunct wizard, not a Muggle).  Muggles have no magic, and therefore don't register on the Map; significant wizards for the viewer would pop up at birth.

[aside: I wonder... when would a pregnant witch's child show up?  At conception, when it doesn't have a name yet?  At birth?  As soon as it has a name?  If Sirius had managed to hang on to the Map (and Harry had been born on the Hogwarts grounds), when would Harry, a significant person for Sirius, have appeared?]

Mrs Norris, in original human form, was a Muggle woman nee Orphan, married to a cruel, abusive Wizard husband, who derided Filch for being a Squib.  A supporter of Grindewald and Minister for Experimental Curses, maybe?  Filch, then young and passionate (instead of old and leprous) was crushed and infuriated, but helpless to protest, as he had no magical powers.  Poor Mrs Norris, herself struggling with her husband's ill-concealed contempt for Muggles and Squibs and the difficulties of living in the Wizard world (maybe her Dursleyesque guardians ousted her when she married Mr Norris?), took pity on Filch, and started talking and corresponding with him about their mutual powerless woes.  They fell desperately in love, and started a torrid affair, but lived in fear of Mr Norris finding out.  Eventually, of course, he did, and in a volcanic fury, turned her into a cat with a curse than can only be reversed by Filch himself, as fit punishment for her infidelity, kicked her into the cellar of Norris Manor, and locked her in to starve.  With Dumbledore's help, Filch rescued her and fled to Hogwarts, where he started work as a caretaker with his feloniously feline beloved under Dumbledore's protection.

OK, here's the escape hatch.  As an ordinary woman, Annie Orphan wouldn't have shown up on the Marauder's Map, because she wasn't magical.  Since the curse, though, she has been rendered magical by default - she is a transfigured human being in cat form, and hence shows up on the Map.  Also, as both Filch and Dumbledore refer to her only as "Mrs Norris" (Filch continued using Mrs Norris in lover's nickname irony, to savour the romantic tragedy of their plight together, and Dumbledore followed suit), the Map took its cue from them and put "Mrs Norris".

Hmm.  Weak, but it'll do as an interim measure.

Whatever the fate of the FLIRTIAC dinghy, I am convinced that Mrs Norris will turn out to be significant in some way.  In one of her interviews (see the Goat for which one) JKR herself proclaimed that the cats in the series will turn out to be important.  Unprompted, even.  We already know Crookshanks is half Kneazle, and to my mind Mrs Norris' behaviour and appearance are a bit too unusual for her to be irrelevant...

Tabouli.


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




From j.balfour at lmu.ac.uk  Fri Feb 15 14:03:55 2002
From: j.balfour at lmu.ac.uk (booleanfox)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:03:55 -0000
Subject: An old-fashioned discussion
In-Reply-To: <001401c1b620$2eebd260$034e28d1@saitaina>
Message-ID: <a4j4gb+ts5b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35262

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Saitaina" <saitaina at w...> wrote:
> My top favorite has to be the two most un-popular everywhere.  Peter
> Pettigrew and Tom "Lord Voldemort Riddle.

<snip>

Yes, but who is your favourite *non-wizarding* character?? (My 
original question!!)




From saramull at optonline.net  Fri Feb 15 13:59:38 2002
From: saramull at optonline.net (sarah28962000)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:59:38 -0000
Subject: Is MOM Elected or appointed?
Message-ID: <a4j48a+5bdn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35263

I just thought I'd ask what everyone's opinion is on this as it 
doesnt seem to be mentioned in the books, maybe because from a kids 
point of view it wouldn't be a big question, but how is the Minister 
of Magic chosen?  Do wizards vote for him? Does anyone know how the 
other Ministers of this and that in the British government are 
chosen, does the Prime Minister pick them like the American Cabinet?  
In that case, can Wizards vote for the Prime Minister? Are they 
represented (secretly) in Parliment? 

How about paying taxes?  Military service?  

Sarah (who obviously has too much free time)





From fiatincantatum at attbi.com  Fri Feb 15 14:09:32 2002
From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:09:32 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: An old-fashioned discussion
In-Reply-To: <a4j33i+mavq@eGroups.com>
References: <a4imhb+e9ag@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C6CD04C.8124.600F11@localhost>

No: HPFGUIDX 35264

On 15 Feb 2002 at 13:40, uilnslcoap wrote:

> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "booleanfox" <j.balfour at l...> wrote:
> > I would be interested to know what everybody's favourite non-
> > wizarding character is, and why?
> 
> Ooohhhh, tough one.  I think I'll go with Crookshanks on this one.  I 
> really like cats (and I suppose therefore half-Kneazles) in general, 
> and I like the fact that he was a very suspicious character and then 
> it came out that he was doing very good things. 

I like Crookshanks also ... I think my favorite scene was the one where he came 
into the common room with a dead spider hanging from his mouth and chewed it up 
while staring at Ron.  CLASSIC cat behavior.  I think Crookshanks gets a lot of 
enjoyment out of harassing Ron, for some reason.

  
-- 
Fiat Incantatum 
fiatincantatum at attbi.com

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




From muellem at bc.edu  Fri Feb 15 14:12:29 2002
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:12:29 -0000
Subject: An old-fashioned discussion
In-Reply-To: <3C6CD04C.8124.600F11@localhost>
Message-ID: <a4j50d+t3g0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35265

> On 15 Feb 2002 at 13:40, uilnslcoap wrote:
> 
> > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "booleanfox" <j.balfour at l...> wrote:
> > > I would be interested to know what everybody's favourite non-
> > > wizarding character is, and why?
> > 
Well, I will have to vote for Crookshanks...I love the scene in GoF 
where he is chasing the gnomes all around the Burrow and the gnomes 
are merrily giggling!  He seems to be a very smart cat(is there any 
other kind:)) and anyway, I love cats, having three of 'em!

cole  





From Edblanning at aol.com  Fri Feb 15 15:13:02 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 10:13:02 EST
Subject: Drowning in theories. A plea.
Message-ID: <8c.13f95876.299e7f7e@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35266

In a message dated 15/02/02 02:02:39 GMT Standard Time, pollux46 at hotmail.com 
writes:
<snip>
quotes Cindy,
> 
> >That said, we do need someone to devise a theory for why Sirius 
> hates 
> >Snape so much. This is more than just the hatred Sirius has at the 
> >end of GoF. For some reason, Sirius hated Snape enough to play the 
> >Prank, but I haven't seen a LOLLIPOPS, George, CUPIDSBLUDGER, 
> Prince, 
> >Mercy, Mercy II type of explanation that I find compelling. Any 
> >takers?
> 
<snip>

>Been meaning to ask this for a long time: What exactly does SINISTER 
>stand for?

Now I've been here for a number of weeks during which time a number of these 
theories have come up, LOLLIPOPS being earlier (and I can just about cope 
with that one, and nearly with CUPIDSBLUDGER despite never being able to 
remember exactly what they stand for). I try to keep up, honestly I do, but 
it's hard and I just feel for the poor guys out there who've only just 
arrived and who read these messages full of acronyms and obscure theory 
names. It must be gibberish!
I know George was introduced, but somehow I missed him (I think I assumed it 
was a thread about George Weasley), which is a shame because I gather now 
that he is a friend of mine. Sometimes new theories come up in posts I 
haven't read (admits it) because, well, time is limited and there are these 
things called family and work and stuff and I have to select which threads I 
am most interested in. Then I find someone's said something key in a post I 
haven't read because it started life in a thread I wasn't following and I'm 
all at sea. 

I know there is a site now for the acronyms (but where is it?). I just wonder 
if there isn't some way that these theories can be collected and summarised 
or whether perhaps they can be referenced to the message number where they 
first appear. It's very hard to trace them back as the threads don't 
necessarily have the theory name in the title. 
Perhaps when a theory takes on this independent, named life, its originator 
could do a very short summary, give the original message number and tack this 
on as an addendum. Anyone taking up the thread could then just paste this 
onto the end of their message so that anyone coming into the conversation who 
doesn't know for instance, what Mercy II is (me, for instance) could come up 
to speed.

Eloise. Tryng to keep her head above water but in grave danger of drowning. 
Hasn't anyone got a lifebelt....Please??


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




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Fri Feb 15 15:19:34 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 02:19:34 +1100
Subject: Shippers and LANDLUBBERS (reassuring Elkins)
Message-ID: <013f01c1b635$955ff3e0$da30c2cb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35267

Elkins:
> > (Tabouli, suspecting that most listmembers are by now well and 
> >truly tired of her voluminous defences of her favorite ship,
> >flourishes her last two LOLLIPOPS)

<concerned look>

>Oh, dear.  I hope that my teasing wasn't part of what gave you that 
impression.  Teasing, like prank-pulling, is all too easy to "get 
wrong," especially in a forum that allows for no observation of body 
language or facial expression.  If I came across genuinely 
exasperated -- or worse, as hostile -- then I do apologize.  And just 
for the record, I always really enjoy reading your LOLLIPOPS defenses.<

Fear not (said she, for mighty dread had seized poor Elkins' mind?).  I wasn't referring to you in the least... it's pretty clear from your posts that you revel in a bit of playful speculation.  I always put your teasing in the context of watching the Ships in headshaking amusement from the shoreline, throwing in the odd playful seashell and insightful observation.  Which you're welcome to do, though I reserve the right to smugness when LOLLIPOPS sails on to victory!

I was referring to the discontented L.A.N.D.L.U.B.B.E.R.S. (Love And Nookie Detesters: Let Us Ban Boring, Endless Romantic Speculations) in our midst, who find all shipping irritating and ongoing whimsical wrangling about speculative (!) ships like LOLLIPOPS and FLIRTIAC and the like positively offensive, and deserving of at least a quashing sledgehammer from the Moderators and preferably a complete ban or eviction to a separate list where they will never darken the waters of the HPFGU main list again.

Now, as no-one will have guessed, I gain great entertainment from my strident stance on LOLLIPOPS and other mildly offbeat Ships (Ships involving the Trio are too centre stage to be much fun - where's the room for concocting elaborate canon-based backstories in that?).  I do base my theories on fill-in-the-jigsaw interpretations of canon, and I'd argue more so than proponents of Harry/Ginny, for example.  Not that there's anything wrong with H/G shipping  - I just think it's more speculation than canon-based at this point, as I think evidence for Harry returning Ginny's feelings is meagre to nil, and therefore supporters of this ship have to do a lot of *forward" speculation, that is, projecting a future in which Harry will notice Ginny and inventing a reason for this.  LOLLIPOPS and FLIRTIAC are *backwards* speculations, where one looks at the present and what we know of the past and tries to develop a backstory about what *did* happen, incorporating everything we currently know from canon.

I've read enough muttering on both the main list and OT to know that there are many people who are heartily sick of shipping posts.  While I know there's no rule against canon-based Shipping, and that such people can delete shipping posts unread (with heavy sighs), I occasionally feel a little conscious of their presence when scooping what feels like my 50th truckload of LOLLIPOPS onto the list.  Much as I like Shipping, there are topics which irritate me as well (I keep quiet and just skim them in my Digests).  I don't like being irritated any more than other people, and can appreciate what it must be like for LANDLUBBERS receiving mailbox after mailbox of an irritant.  It doesn't stop me Shipping, mind you, it just gives me an uneasy twinge now and then (almost an awareness of potentially hostile creatures patrolling the waters...)

Tabouli.


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




From cindysphynx at home.com  Fri Feb 15 15:31:10 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:31:10 -0000
Subject: Drowning in theories. A plea.
In-Reply-To: <8c.13f95876.299e7f7e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a4j9ju+sviu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35268

Eloise wrote:

>I try to keep up, honestly I do, but 
> it's hard and I just feel for the poor guys out there who've only 
just 
> arrived and who read these messages full of acronyms and obscure 
theory 
> names. It must be gibberish!

Help has arrived!  :-)

A few weeks ago, we added a file called "Inish Alley."  It is a 
summary of all of the acronyms we could find, what they mean, and the 
message number in which they were originally introduced.  Check it 
out at http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/inishalley/.  If the link doesn't 
work, go to ADMIN message 33,666 or go to the Files section under 
Administrative files.  It is reasonably well-updated at this point, 
but it will be getting another shot in the arm soon for the most 
recent acronyms.

There is also a database that has even *more* acronyms with their 
definitions, but it does not yet have message numbers.  Check 
the "Database" section here on the main list.

Eloise again:

> I know George was introduced, but somehow I missed him (I think I 
assumed it 
> was a thread about George Weasley), which is a shame because I 
gather now 
> that he is a friend of mine. Sometimes new theories come up in 
posts I 
> haven't read (admits it) because, well, time is limited and there 
are these 
> things called family and work and stuff and I have to select which 
threads I 
> am most interested in. 

I can't provide much help on things like Prince, George, Mercy, 
Fourth Man.  They're not acronyms, so they are not in Inish Alley.  
You might have to poke around in web-view, search for "Prince of 
Darkness" (which would pre-date George, IIRC) and then feel around 
from there.  It's is a very *long* Snape & the DEs discussion.  Sorry 
I can't be more helpful.

Cindy -- proud member of S.I.N.I.S.T.E.R, and glad the acronym saves 
her the trouble of repeatedly typing "Sirius is really terrific and I 
think he is a great character and lots of people criticize him 
unfairly, and he had perfectly good reasons for doing everything he 
did."




From greyshi at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 15 14:44:52 2002
From: greyshi at yahoo.com (greyshi)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:44:52 -0000
Subject: Hermione's name
In-Reply-To: <a4i3b8+pobb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4j6t4+p0m0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35269

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hp_lexicon" <hp_lexicon at y...> wrote:
 
> > I was wondering if anyone knew of an instance when someone had 
> asked 
> > JKR about the significance of Hermione's name? 
> 
> Here's what the Lexicon says about Hermione's name, according to JKR:
> 
> JKR chose the name Hermione from a Shakespeare play, "A Winter's 
> Tale," although she says that the characters are not at all similar. 

I find it interesting that JKR also named her own daughter after a name 
that Shakespeare invented.

Shakespeare himself probably got Hermione from Greek mythology where it 
is the feminine form of Hermes. The Greek Hermione was involved in a 
love triangle as the wife of the son of Achilles. Or maybe it was a 
love square? Because he took Hector's daughter as his second wife and 
then Orestes (another Trojan War figure) wanted to marry Hermione, so 
he had Achilles' son killed....

Maybe I'm reading more into the names than JKR intended, or maybe it's 
just clever coincidence, but Hermes was the god of cunning and *
invention* he carried the caduceus, the symbol of medical professionals 
(dentists.) Minerva is the Roman name for the Greek Goddess Athena. 
Athena was the goddess of wisedom and *invention*. She was considered 
to be a studious, severe, virginal goddess (I guess compared to 
Aphrodite?) who was just and noble. Owls were one of her symbols. Roman 
schools were called athenaeums.






From cindysphynx at home.com  Fri Feb 15 15:49:49 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:49:49 -0000
Subject: Shippers and LANDLUBBERS (reassuring Elkins)
In-Reply-To: <013f01c1b635$955ff3e0$da30c2cb@price>
Message-ID: <a4jamt+p3ad@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35270

Tabouli wrote:

> Now, as no-one will have guessed, I gain great entertainment from 
>my strident stance on LOLLIPOPS and other mildly offbeat Ships 
>(Ships involving the Trio are too centre stage to be much fun - 
>where's the room for concocting elaborate canon-based backstories in 
>that?).  I do base my theories on fill-in-the-jigsaw interpretations 
>of canon, and I'd argue more so than proponents of Harry/Ginny, for 
>example.  Not that there's anything wrong with H/G shipping  - I 
>just think it's more speculation than canon-based at this point, as 
>I think evidence for Harry returning Ginny's feelings is meagre to 
>nil, and therefore supporters of this ship have to do a lot of 
>*forward" speculation, that is, projecting a future in which Harry 
>will notice Ginny and inventing a reason for this.  LOLLIPOPS and 
>FLIRTIAC are *backwards* speculations, where one looks at the 
>present and what we know of the past and tries to develop a 
>backstory about what *did* happen, incorporating everything we 
>currently know from canon.


That's it!  You've put your finger on an important distinction, IMHO.

You see, some shipping theories don't intrigue me much (R/H, H/H, 
etc), but I think LOLLIPOPS, CUPIDSBLUDGER and other backward-looking 
theories like FEATHERBOA, George are great fun.  The difference must 
be the distinction Tabouli makes -- that backward speculation is more 
canon-based.  We do have lots of clear canon facts about Snape's 
background, who was a Death Eater and when, who tried to feed whom to 
a werewolf, who has a grudge against whom, etc.  It is entertaining 
on some level to try to use logic to piece these facts together into 
something coherent and, hopefully, mildly amusing.

On the other hand, we have no canon at all that one character will 
wind up with another because none of it has happened yet.  So we are 
left with speculating about whether a particular interaction will 
lead to a future relationship when we don't even know for sure if 
certain characters will survive the next book.  

Well, at least I understand, or at least I think I do.  I guess that 
makes me a non-future-shipper and a pro-past-shipper.

Cindy 




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 15 16:48:41 2002
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:48:41 -0000
Subject: SHIP:   Florence, Bertha and C.U.P.I.D.S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R.
In-Reply-To: <a4hq49+clmu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4je59+81i3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35271

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "charisjulia" <pollux46 at h...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> > Cindy wrote:
> ><snip long Florence/Bertha/Snape/Sirius theory>
> >Why can't Florence be Sirius' girlfriend? Hmmm. Let's spin that for 
> >a bit. If Florence if Sirius' girlfriend, then Bertha sees Snape 
> >kissing Florence, who has suddenly developed an appreciation for 
> >sallow skin, hooked noses and greasy hair. Well, OK. Snape curses 
> >Bertha, but Sirius hears about it anyway. This <tiny snip on piece I 
> will address shortly> would come up short in its effort to be a 
> >motive for everything 
> >Snape does -- turning DE, hating James, hating Sirius.
> 
> 
> Errr, but that's not what I was making for at all
 How about this 
> simpler take on events: Florence is Sirius' girlfriend. 

If I might be allowed to add my own wrinkle to C.U.P.I.D.S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. (ok, I'm not typing that more than once) I'd like 
to suggest that said Florence (or for that matter any other girl - we don't
 know that the "he" who hexed Bertha is 
Sirius) is not Snape's girlfriend or the object of his affections but his sister.  (Hence, by the way, my objection to 
naming said sister Florence - somehow, Florence Snape doesn't quite work, you feel as though her name ought to 
start with an S.)  Through a humorous sequence of coincidences and misunderstandings, Sirius manages to have a 
rather serious entanglement with this girl without ever learning her last name (because that's just the kind of guy he 
is.)  Somehow when you've stolen away to the janitor's closet for a few minutes you don't feel like boning up on 
family history, I guess.

And then comes the infamous prank.  Florence, as I will reluctantly call her, is understandably a bit pissed at her 
boyfriend for trying to kill her brother, and breaks up with him.  Hence the reason for Sirius hating Snape - "I'll bet he 
poisoned her against me" or "Why does *he* have to be close to *my* girlfriend?" and of course plenty of protective 
brotherly feelings to make Snape hate Sirius even if you don't consider the
 prank as his main motivation for said hatered.

Note that I'm not using this girl to explain Snape's descent into darkness 
because I am a firm follower of George (if for 
no other reason than that he takes his name from my all time favorite Loony
 Tunes cartoon) although if you really 
must have it I suppose sister Florence could have been killed by DEs, thus 
bringing about Snape's defection to the light 
side.

Of course there's absolutely no canon to support this (not that the Bludger
 seems to need canon anyway) but I will 
point out that it's an awfully modular theory.  Sister Florence can be olde
r, younger or a twin, the best friend young 
Severus has or practically estranged from him (which adds the possibility that it was Sirius who broke up with her after 
discovering her antecedents), and in any house in Hogwarts where Sirius might glimpse her (we know from canon that 
siblings, even identical twins, don't *have* to be in the same house.)  Of course, that same modularity is true for 
Florence as girlfriend, as it's a theory with absolutely no grounding in canon and hence a great deal of freedom.  This 
way, though, neither Sirius nor Snape have to be a nasty guy who hangs about with other people's girlfriends.

Your sister in avoiding final exams,
Abigail






From Aberforths_Goat at Yahoo.com  Fri Feb 15 17:26:46 2002
From: Aberforths_Goat at Yahoo.com (Aberforth's Goat)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 18:26:46 +0100
Subject: How JKR hired UFOs from Graceland to shoot JFK
References: <a4dt0c+ob7a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001501c1b645$f289cb80$0200a8c0@shasta>

No: HPFGUIDX 35272

Translated: It's time for good, old fashioned conspiracy theory!

Back before Christmas, I sent a post through to the list: in a
preview to the BBC Christmas Special, various articles had stated
that we'd get some nerve-tingling news in the coming show: Harry
is going to date Cho - but develop a more romantic interest
Hermione! But by the time the show hit the airwaves, that
romantic interest vanished faster than a UFO in Arizona.

Here are a few of the links that cropped up back then:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/23/potter.author/
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/231201/dLFOR15.asp
http://www.itv.com/news/Entertainment7297665.html

Doesn't anyone else find this just a tad odd? Fortunately, I have
taken a little time to develop a few theories to explain this
strange disappearance:
(1) A large group of journalists had a simultaneous mass
hallucination and/or acid flash.
(2) Every HP-oriented newspaper article in the whole world (note:
that's the Hindustani Times up there ... ) is actually written by
a reclusive, romantic Texan, known only by the initials PN.
(3) JKR, in collaboration with certain unnamed Poltergeists,
intentionally spread misinformation to see if she could wind up
her fans a little.

I decided to write the book editor of the Guardian (which had
printed a similar article) and helpfully explained some of my
theories. He wrote back as follows:

> Dear Mike Gray
> Thanks for your email and for drawing the mistake to our
attention - it happened
> due to an ambiguity in the pre-release information about the
programme. We've
> now amended the story. No acid flashback or evil enchantment, I
promise.

Sure enough - the article is now fixed - no more Hermione!
http://books.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4326559,00.html

So: the conspiracy continues - now we are into the Evil Cover Up.
But a good conspiracy theorist is not so easily daunted. Just
what sort of "ambiguity" in a press release causes droves of
professional journalists to write things like this?

> There will also be further romance following on from Harry
> Potter And The Goblet Of Fire in which he has a date with
> a quidditch team-mate -- and develops more of an interest in
> pal Hermione. [CNN]

And so, at least in my twisted mind, the hunt continues.

Baaaaaa!

Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray, who is thinking of selling
the movie rights to Oliver Stone ... )
_______________________

"Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not
have been bravery...."



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Fri Feb 15 17:41:38 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 17:41:38 -0000
Subject: How JKR hired UFOs from Graceland to shoot JFK
In-Reply-To: <001501c1b645$f289cb80$0200a8c0@shasta>
Message-ID: <a4jh8i+cns6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35273

Interesting conspiracy theory. Carry on with the hunt. The truth is 
out there.

But since this is bugging me (what could be the answer?), I'm going to 
be a spoil-sport and venture a prosaic explanation. It looks to me 
like a grammatical error.

CNN wrote:
 > > There will also be further romance following on from Harry
> > Potter And The Goblet Of Fire in which he has a date with
> > a quidditch team-mate -- and develops more of an interest in
> > pal Hermione. [CNN]

"in which" seems to refer to GoF. Now, that's impossible b/c neither 
of those things happen in GoF, right? Yes, but the person who wrote 
the article hasn't read the book, just other press clippings, in which 
people ask, "Will Harry date Hermione?" and J.K. Rowling goes, "You'll 
see." and reviews of the books, "Harry asks Cho Chang out." 

So, now our friend the illiterate article writer sits down and has to 
put a frame around J.K. Rowling's famous hormone statement. Using his 
gleamed and limited knowledge of the books, he writes a fancy little 
intro about how Book V will follow on to several events in Book IV, 
events that never actually happned.

Whoever wrote the first article is followed by the others, and the 
rumours get more and more interesting.... but also, I think, untrue.

Eileen

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Aberforth's Goat" <Aberforths_Goat at Y...> 
wrote:
> Translated: It's time for good, old fashioned conspiracy theory!
> 
> Back before Christmas, I sent a post through to the list: in a
> preview to the BBC Christmas Special, various articles had stated
> that we'd get some nerve-tingling news in the coming show: Harry
> is going to date Cho - but develop a more romantic interest
> Hermione! But by the time the show hit the airwaves, that
> romantic interest vanished faster than a UFO in Arizona.
> 
> Here are a few of the links that cropped up back then:
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/23/potter.author/
> http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/231201/dLFOR15.asp
> http://www.itv.com/news/Entertainment7297665.html
> 
> Doesn't anyone else find this just a tad odd? Fortunately, I have
> taken a little time to develop a few theories to explain this
> strange disappearance:
> (1) A large group of journalists had a simultaneous mass
> hallucination and/or acid flash.
> (2) Every HP-oriented newspaper article in the whole world (note:
> that's the Hindustani Times up there ... ) is actually written by
> a reclusive, romantic Texan, known only by the initials PN.
> (3) JKR, in collaboration with certain unnamed Poltergeists,
> intentionally spread misinformation to see if she could wind up
> her fans a little.
> 
> I decided to write the book editor of the Guardian (which had
> printed a similar article) and helpfully explained some of my
> theories. He wrote back as follows:
> 
> > Dear Mike Gray
> > Thanks for your email and for drawing the mistake to our
> attention - it happened
> > due to an ambiguity in the pre-release information about the
> programme. We've
> > now amended the story. No acid flashback or evil enchantment, I
> promise.
> 
> Sure enough - the article is now fixed - no more Hermione!
> http://books.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4326559,00.html
> 
> So: the conspiracy continues - now we are into the Evil Cover Up.
> But a good conspiracy theorist is not so easily daunted. Just
> what sort of "ambiguity" in a press release causes droves of
> professional journalists to write things like this?
> 
> > There will also be further romance following on from Harry
> > Potter And The Goblet Of Fire in which he has a date with
> > a quidditch team-mate -- and develops more of an interest in
> > pal Hermione. [CNN]
> 
> And so, at least in my twisted mind, the hunt continues.
> 
> Baaaaaa!
> 
> Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray, who is thinking of selling
> the movie rights to Oliver Stone ... )
> _______________________
> 
> "Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not
> have been bravery...."
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Feb 15 18:18:28 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 18:18:28 -0000
Subject: How JKR hired UFOs from Graceland to shoot JFK
In-Reply-To: <a4jh8i+cns6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4jjdk+cauv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35274

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

> So, now our friend the illiterate article writer sits down and has 
to put a frame around J.K. Rowling's famous hormone 
statement. Using his  gleamed and limited knowledge of the 
books, he writes a fancy little  intro about how Book V will follow 
on to several events in Book IV,  events that never actually 
happned.


"gleamed" knowledge? At last we know what caused 
Dumbledore's eyes to light up in GoF!  It was the reflected 
glimmer of a UFO!


Pippin
one lining, but has given in to her inner L.O.O.N. and is going to 
post an inclusive list of all vampire references and vampirish 
Snape discriptions to make up for it.





From greyshi at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 15 17:27:38 2002
From: greyshi at yahoo.com (greyshi)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 17:27:38 -0000
Subject: Drowning in theories. A plea.
In-Reply-To: <a4j9ju+sviu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4jgea+igrt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35275

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
mes. It must be gibberish!
> 
> Help has arrived!  :-)

Psychic! I was just going to email my listelf for help!
 
> A few weeks ago, we added a file called "Inish Alley."  It is a 
> summary of all of the acronyms we could find, what they mean, and the 
> message number in which they were originally introduced.  Check it 
> out at http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/inishalley/. 

I've decided after a week, that I'm not really a shipper myself. But 
I'm not annoyed either. So whereas I don't read every thread, the ones 
I do read provide me with amusement. I think that I'll invent a new 
term. I am a TOURIST (inTermittant Observer Unbiasedly of Rows In Ship 
Talk) on the shoreline. It could also stand for inTermittant Observer 
Unbiasedly of Rows In Snape Talk.

-Greyshi






From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 15 18:13:05 2002
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 18:13:05 -0000
Subject: Wands, Meanings and Where it All Could Lead...
In-Reply-To: <a4h4sk+ic3j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4jj3h+bnbl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35276

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rachelrenee1" <rachelrenee1 at y...> wrote:
> Well, first we have to look at the "brother" wands of Voldemort and 
> Harry. They have the same cores for power, but Volemort has Yew and 
> Harry has Holly.
> 
> (The following paragraphs are paraphrases.) Well, Yew is 
> traditionally the tree of death and mourning. Widow's 
> broches from the Victorian era usually have a picture of a yew tree 
> on them somewhere. Yews are planted in cemetaries because they were 
> thought to feed in death and decay (i.e. corpses...humm, pleasant.)
> 
> Holly on the other hand, is associated with life. It is an 
> evergreen. It is alive even in the harshest of winters. This is the 
> reason it is a Christmas plant, both it and pine are alive and 
> symbols of life in the time of death and stasis that is winter. 

You know, this (fascinating stuff which illustrates once more just how well JKR did her homework) ties in to some 
thoughts I had a few weeks ago about Harry and LV's wands and pheonixes is general, which I will try, with very little 
hope of success, to articulate.

The pheonix is rather obviously a resurrection symbol (can it still be called a symbol if the resurrection is its core 
function?) the fact that it is closely tied to Dumbledore and the side of good (it's been widely suggested that the Order 
of the Pheonix is the light side's answer to the death eaters.)  This raises some intersting questions on the meaning of 
life and death with regards to good and evil in Potterverse.

Voldemort, representing and embodying evil, is all about the defeat of death.  The name "Voldemort" with which he 
had been associated with since he was a child, means "the death of death", his followers are the eaters of death, 
even his symbol is the Morsmordre - death of death again (I think - it's been a while since checked the lexicon.)  By his 
own admission, his final goal in the bad old days was to achieve immortality, and he worked very hard to protect 
himself against death so that, having been hit by the Avada Kedavra curse, he still managed to survive in some basic, 
bodyless form.

Taking these ambitions away from Voldemort's other ambitions (namely, ruling the world, killing muggles and muggle-
born wizards, and general murder and mayhem) they don't seem so terrible.  After all, what  could be better than 
conquering death?  Harry himself finds embracing death difficult to understand when he learns, in PS, that Nicolas 
Flamel has consented to have the Philosopher's Stone destroyed.  It's Hagrid who answers this question at the very 
beginning of the series when he says of Voldemort "Some say he died... Don't know if he had enough human left in 
him to die."

In other words, in Potterverse, evil isn't represented by death and good by life, but almost the other way around.  
Nicolas Flamel, a friend of Dumbldore's and hence a good guy, destroys the Philosopher's Stone which Voldemort 
covets.  It's no accident, in my opinion, that Rowling changed the Stone's function so that in destroying it Flamel 
accepts death.  This allows Dumbledore to state, so early in the series and with such importance, that "death is but 
the next great adventure."  Voldemort is evil not because he causes death but because he refuese to accept it - in 
trying to become immortal he becomes inhuman.

The pheonix, then, represents not immortality but resurrection - life *through* death, not without it, just as Harry's life 
is saved through the death of his mother.  To be a dark wizard, then, is to dispute the natural order of things - that 
everything must change and die - and attempt to change it.  Ignoring the relgious connotations of this claim (and 
that's some mighty big ignoring that I'm only managing by dint of being Jewish) I think this is going to be a theme in 
the series - death is only truly death when there's no one left who is willing to rise out of the ashes and try again.  I 
think this ties in to Dumbledore's speech at the end of GoF, in which he says words to the effect of "in order for evil to 
triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing."

Given all these thoughts I find it interesting that Harry and Voldemort both share wand cores from a creature 
associated with resurrection but with opposite woods - representing life and death.  This has a definite Star Wars-y 
twang where I would rather find no Star Wars-ness - the troubled young man seeks to find a way to master what 
frightens him and becomed the embodiment of evil in the process, and the younger man who learns that in order to 
vanquish his fears he must embrace them or risk the same fate.

I realise I've made very little sense - it's all very confused in my mind.  And I haven't really dealt with your theory.  
Considering my thoughts on the life/death issue I feel very strongly that Dumbledore was stating some basic truth of 
Potterverse when he said that no power can bring back the dead - accepting that death is coming is part of what 
makes the good guys good guys.  It's perhaps not impossible, though, that Harry will one day be able to block the 
unblockable AK curse (excepting the time he already did it as a fluke of wands.)

I hope | haven't lost everybody altogether.  I believe Harry is in for a lot of loss in the near future (basic storytelling 
technique requires that the side of light suffer some mighty loss before rallying back to defeat the side of darkness) 
and that how he deals with it, how he rises out his own ashes, will determine his fate far more importantly than 
anything else he does after.

Abigail, now back to Calculus which I at least have a chance of understanding.






From aleksrothis at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Feb 15 19:04:13 2002
From: aleksrothis at yahoo.co.uk (aleksrothis)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:04:13 -0000
Subject: Is MOM Elected or appointed?
In-Reply-To: <a4j48a+5bdn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4jm3d+9c2t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35277

Wow, after waiting for what seems like ages, a topic has come up to 
incite me to post again! Thanks, Sarah :)

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sarah28962000" <saramull at o...> wrote:
> I just thought I'd ask what everyone's opinion is on this as it 
> doesnt seem to be mentioned in the books, maybe because from a kids 
> point of view it wouldn't be a big question, but how is the 
Minister 
> of Magic chosen?  Do wizards vote for him? Does anyone know how the 
> other Ministers of this and that in the British government are 
> chosen, does the Prime Minister pick them like the American 
Cabinet?  
> In that case, can Wizards vote for the Prime Minister? Are they 
> represented (secretly) in Parliment? 


As a Brit I'll try to describe the UK system (please bear in mind 
that I have no idea how things happen in the US). To be a Minister in 
the British government you need either be:
 1)An elected member of the House of Commons (voted in by a universal 
suffrage, first post the post, constituency based system)or,
 2)A member of the House of Lords (previously inherited titles, now 
people made peers of the realm by the government and soon to be 
amended further)

So, if the Minister of Magic was truly elected as any other minister 
would be, then he would also by a Member of Parliament in the UK OR a 
peer. It seems unlikely that the average voter would elect a wizard 
as their MP, unless s/he lived in the Muggle world (which would mean 
those elitists, who dislike Muggles, would have no chance). 

Therefore, we must either assume that wizarding folk form their own 
(non-geographical) constituencies and so have representation in 
parliament, or that the MOM is elected in a diffrent manner to other 
Ministers. 

Perhaps the wizarding folk have their own devolved parliament, 
elected by themselves only, where the leader of the majority 'party' 
becomes, by default, MOM? Or perhaps the wizarding folk elect a MOM 
as the French (and I believe the Americans) elect their President?
 
> 
> How about paying taxes? 

Sorry, no ideas here.

> Military service?

No such thing in the UK, and so I doubt wizards in this country would 
have it either.  

Aleks (who's actually been paying attention in politics lectures 
instead of writing fanfiction)




From michelleapostolides at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Feb 15 19:14:19 2002
From: michelleapostolides at yahoo.co.uk (Michelle Apostolides)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:14:19 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Over Fry, Over Dale, As they read us Potter's tale!
References: <20020215040549.30484.qmail@web20406.mail.yahoo.com> <003901c1b5fb$aae15f40$929abc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>
Message-ID: <002001c1b654$f87352a0$ac94883e@Michelle>

No: HPFGUIDX 35278

 There are many non-english versions of the book but, as far as I know, no non-English audio tapes.  Amazon would probably ship the (recommended) U.K. version?

There are audio books in other languages. i have heard the French and German ones. I liked the German ones better ! As Neil knows, I think Rufus Beck does the best job of the lot !!

Michelle


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




From fourfuries at aol.com  Fri Feb 15 19:21:13 2002
From: fourfuries at aol.com (four4furies)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:21:13 -0000
Subject: Wands, Meanings and Where it All Could Lead...
In-Reply-To: <a4jj3h+bnbl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4jn39+fbb8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35279

    Haven't posted for quite a while (and I'm sure nobody missed me) 
but I thought the post from Abigail on the themes of Life, Death and 
Acceptannce were right on point.  It is like the difference between 
Knowledge and Wisdom.  Voldemort seeks knowledge for the purpose of 
gaining power, to be able to do things and subjugate people and 
ultimately to defy death.  Dumbledore, Nicholas Flamel and others 
seek wisdom so that they can understand things as they are and to 
accept the inevitability of things as they are, including death.  
This is important in the context that peple's choices are what 
determine their goodness or badness.  It's like what your motivation 
is will determine your outcomes.



--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "abigailnus" <abigailnus at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rachelrenee1" <rachelrenee1 at y...> wrote:

> > Well, first we have to look at the "brother" wands of Voldemort 
and Harry. They have the same cores for power, but Volemort has Yew 
and Harry has Holly. Yew is traditionally the tree of death and 
mourning. Holly on the other hand, is associated with life. It is an 
 evergreen. It is alive even in the harshest of winters.  
> 
> In ... Potterverse, evil isn't represented by death and good by 
life, but almost the other way around.  Nicolas Flamel, a friend of 
Dumbldore's and hence a good guy, destroys the Philosopher's Stone 
which Voldemort covets.  ...in destroying it Flamel 
accepts death.  This allows Dumbledore to state, so early in the 
series and with such importance, that "death is but 
the next great adventure."

>  Voldemort is evil not because he causes death but because he 
refuese to accept it - in trying to become immortal he becomes 
inhuman.  To be a dark wizard, then, is to dispute the natural order 
of things - that everything must change and die - and attempt to 
change it.  






From Edblanning at aol.com  Fri Feb 15 19:57:11 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:57:11 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is MOM Elected or appointed?
Message-ID: <17.234e64ce.299ec217@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35280

In a message dated 15/02/02 14:09:26 GMT Standard Time, 
saramull at optonline.net writes:

>I just thought I'd ask what everyone's opinion is on this as it 
>doesnt seem to be mentioned in the books, maybe because from a kids 
>point of view it wouldn't be a big question, but how is the Minister 
>of Magic chosen?  Do wizards vote for him? Does anyone know how the 
>other Ministers of this and that in the British government are 
>chosen, does the Prime Minister pick them like the American Cabinet?  
>In that case, can Wizards vote for the Prime Minister? Are they 
>represented (secretly) in Parliment? 

I don't know how the Minister of Magic is chosen, but yes, the British Prime 
Minister picks the members of his Cabinet, from the elected Members of 
Parliament of his party.
So, the question is, Did Margaret Thatcher appoint Cornelius Fudge? Is this 
something else we can lay at her door? (Was Margaret Thatcher in league with 
Lord Voldemort??)
Perhaps the appointment of the MOM is akin to the appointment of (C of E) 
Bishops: a shortlist of candidates is presented to the PM who is then 
supposed to select the one the Church of England wants, (although sometimes 
the PM will have his/her own way).
We don't vote for the Prime Minister in the way you vote for the President. 
Our Prime Minister is the leader of the party that gains the most seats in 
the General Election, so no, wizards wouldn't directly vote for the Prime 
Minister. Could they be on the Electoral Roll? Well,  they would have to have 
plottable addresses and be found by the officials who distribute the forms 
(Mrs Weasley wasn't sure that the postman would be able to find the Burrow, 
was she, though the taxi drivers managed OK). I wonder if they would also 
have to have birth certificates? (Do pureblood wizards born in conjectural 
wizard hospitals have these, I wonder?) There must be some way of checking 
that you haven't just put down a load of false names on the Electoral Roll 
form. If they are eligible to vote, then I guess that they would only have 
the option of voting for the regular muggle candidates. I can't personally 
see how they could be represented in parliament, although just like industry 
etc, they could have parliamentary lobbyists who promote their cause with 
individual MPs. 
I can't really see the wizarding population turning out to vote, though. I 
don't think muggle politics would be of any interest to them.
The odd thing about the Ministry of Magic though, is that it seems to be more 
than *a* ministry: it's divided into departments, which is, of course what 
each of our British muggle ministers is responsible for (most of what used to 
be called 'ministries' are now 'departments'. The Ministry of Defence is the 
only remaining example I can think of off the top of my head). So, for 
instance, Bagman (the Ever-so-Evil!) is the equivalent of a Minister for 
Sport, only without the parliamentary duties. This leaves the MOM looking 
more like a Prime Minister and leaves one wondering who from the wizarding 
community appoints/ elects/ suggests his appointment. 

I expect JKR knows!

Eloise (who is the most unpolitical animal she knows, but who can't resist 
the opportunity for a little cross-cultural exchange.)






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




From Edblanning at aol.com  Fri Feb 15 20:00:47 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:00:47 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Head Boy & Head Girl????
Message-ID: <6e.17dc324c.299ec2ef@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35281

In a message dated 14/02/02 22:52:55 GMT Standard Time, 
greywolf1 at jazzfree.com writes:


> 
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tanie_05" <tanie_05 at h...> wrote:
> > Hey everyone. I just have a quick question. How many Head Boys & Head 
> > Girls are there at one time? I thought there was one of each, but I 
> > read something on the Internet that makes it sound like there's one 
> > in each House. Please help me out!!! Thanks!!
> > 
> > -Kyrstyne (who is now confused out of her mind)
> 
> IIRC, about the only canon we have about the head boy/girl posistion is 
> the fact that both James and Lily had the position in their last year 
> at Hogwarts. Since they were both Gryffindors and in the same year, 
> canon is against that particular I-net rumour.
> 
> Lately I've been wondering about head-students too: Maybe my memory is 
> starting to fail on the small details (as soon as I finish the book I'm 
> reading now, I'll re-read HP again), but it seems that there are years 
> when there are NO head boys/girls at all, all the work being done by 
> prefects. This would turn the idea of "head boy/girl" into some sort of 
> oficial recognition of excelence in studies/duties or other 
> cathedratical measures. At any rate, during the Sirius incidents of 
> PoA, prefects were left in charge of the different houses, with no 
> mention done to any head boys/girls, which is the spawning ground of 
> this particular theory.
> 
> As always, if anyone has any back-up, counter-arguments or any other 
> form of colaboration, they will be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Hope that helps,
> 

In our school, which is a Prep (up to 13 yrs, but the model is the same for 
many senior schools), we have prefects, drawn from the top year and all 
houses and one head boy and one head girl. These are all appointed by the 
staff. 
Hogwarts similarly appears to have a number of prefects from each house, one 
Head Boy and one Head Girl. 

I agree with Kyli that we simply don't hear about all of them because they 
are not relevant to the storyline. I had always thought it strange that Percy 
seemed to be the *only* Gryffindor prefect until something happened which 
showed or implied there were others ( sorry, can't remember canon, but I'm 
sure it's there somewhere). They just aren't mentioned. Just like some of the 
teachers (I don't think that the names of the Muggle studies or Ancient Runes 
teachers have been mentioned yet, though I'm sure that I will be corrected!).

What's interesting is that the only Head Boys/ Girl we know of are all 
Gryffindors: Bill and Percy Weasley and James and Lily (er...do we *know* she 
was a Gryffindor?). Again, they are all characters relevant to the story and 
to Harry's POV, so that's why we know about them. 

Eloise


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




From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com  Fri Feb 15 18:44:37 2002
From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 18:44:37 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book 5 Predictions - Well someone had to do it.
References: <a4gr0i+m9h4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <009a01c1b651$48cec080$a48bbc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 35282

As folks start to make noises about getting predictions organised; off I go, nailing my theses to the door like Martin Luther (Wittenberg 1517).  I must start by saying * it goes against every fibre of my being to actually put Prediction One, in particular, down in print * .. but, what the heck, here goes.

 

PREDICTION - ONE

* Deep Breath *  Remus Lupin is for the high jump/chop/is a marked man/on the way out i.e. will die. (This breaks my heart, I LOVE the man and HOPE I'm wrong).  I did think of Dumbledore but could not bring myself to associate his name with death (yet).

 

JUSTIFICATION 

Someone has to die - it can't be Sirius.  Anyone, Anyone but Severus... (OK so I'm stuck on him too....)

 

PREDICTION - TWO

They get to travel.

 

JUSTIFICATION

We all need a change of scenery (too many underground tunnels & visits to Hogsmead can lose their allure).  Boot camp at Durmstrang or Ron re-visiting his passion for Fleur Delacour at Beauxbatons, Rumania, Little Gidding, Egypt???

 

PREDICTION - THREE

Harry will fall in love with Cho with the field now clear of Cedric Diggory, her former inamorata.   Either that or get a crush on his Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher - strongly rumoured to be female in OotP.

 

JUSTIFICATION

He's at THAT STAGE in his life - * Girls * have already made appearances in that direction (GoF) OotP just takes it further.  Let's just hope Ron's interpersonal skills improve in this area too!  

 

PREDICTION - FOUR

Mrs Dursley - in denial for most of her life - will be outed as The Other Witch in the family.  

 

JUSTIFICATION

None.  The idea is just too wild for words!!!!  I just want to see how JKR handles it, if its true.   

 

Ultimately, I will just have to get my head down and read the book and stay away from HPFGU until I have finished it.  Maybe longer *Takes Deep Breath*  if Remus or Severus die. 

 

Felicia Rickmann





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





From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com  Fri Feb 15 18:54:51 2002
From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 18:54:51 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Over Fry, Over Dale, As they read us Potter's tale!
References: <a4imt4+tfml@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00ac01c1b652$473f7880$a48bbc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 35283

  There is a set of tapes/cd's for all of the german books - i have a 
  copy of the PS one.  I like the narrator a LOT better than Dale, 
  haven't heard Fry...now if only I knew my German well enough to not 
  be running solely on general idea and actually understanding 
  everything...

  --jc
  who has delurked long enough to post before leaving town for the 
  weekend but also wanted to throw in his two sickels for the 
  LANDLUBBERS.


As jc has decamped leaving some of us (who speak rusty but just about sufficient German) without any idea of who to contact or where to begin our hunt for another narrator for my collection, can someone else help locate the foreign language HP cd/tapes?  I am presently scouting about for a sample of the Dale tapes - fascinated as I am to hear the canon read by as many different people as I can.  An idea of the narrator's identity might be helpful to, I have a German colleague at work who would be keen to hear about it and could proably shed light on the WHO narrating the book.

Felicia


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





From alexpie at aol.com  Fri Feb 15 19:18:42 2002
From: alexpie at aol.com (alexpie at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:18:42 EST
Subject: Acronym Madness
Message-ID: <2b.22950801.299eb912@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35284

Falling asleep last night, after Valentine's Day champagne, I came up with 
this:
Snape Is Right, Intelligent Unchecked Students Behave Like Anarchists, 
Causing Killings! --or-- S.I.R.I.U.S.B.L.A.C.K.
Ba




From hollydaze at btinternet.com  Fri Feb 15 20:23:56 2002
From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:23:56 -0000
Subject: Head Boy & Head Girl????
References: <6e.17dc324c.299ec2ef@aol.com>
Message-ID: <005101c1b65e$b2849920$a763073e@j0dhe>

No: HPFGUIDX 35285

Eloise wrote:
<SNIP>
> What's interesting is that the only Head Boys/ Girl we know of are 
> all Gryffindors: Bill and Percy Weasley and James and Lily (er...do 
> we *know* she was a Gryffindor?). Again, they are all characters 
> relevant to the story and to Harry's POV, so that's why we know about 
> them. 

Not quite, Tom Riddle was head boy and he was a Slytherin. Although he is (obviously) still VERY relevant to the story. I think Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff and Slytherin would see it as VERY unfair if the head boy/girl was always from Gryffindor. Although it does seem odd to me that anyone would want to pick a head boy/girl from Slytherin, given what we know about how they behave (Flint in the Quidditch, Malfoy Crabbe and Goyle to HRH, etc). Maybe there are other Slytherins (who we just don't know) who aren't actually as bad as the rest of them. Or they fake it so they can get the "bonus" of being head boy/girl. That sort of thing in Muggle schools can help you get into collage, get a job etc so I would be surprised if being a prefect, head boy/girl doesn't give you the same "helping hand" in Wizard Jobs etc.
Although I can defiantly see a head boy/girl being in Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff. 

HOLLYDAZE!!!


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




From sfrankel at si.rr.com  Fri Feb 15 19:15:49 2002
From: sfrankel at si.rr.com (sheryl)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:15:49 -0500
Subject: Seriously Sirius
Message-ID: <003301c1b655$2d6120a0$e766a818@si.rr.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35286

Hi all, I am jumping into this list after lurking for weeks and reading everything that has been written about my favorite animagus, Padfoot.

  I've read all kinds of theories about him and thought to offer one or two of my own. forgive me if this has been gone over before.  IIRC in canon it is stated that he is a prankster along with James. Nowhere do I remember it being said that he was a lady's man or a heartbreaker. I see the pre-Azkaban Sirius as someone who is not really aware of his obvious attractiveness and was more interested in having a good time with his pals. He is also shown as happy and smiling at James' and Lily's wedding so I don't think that he harbors any disdain for those who have decided to make a commitment to each other. Nothing has been said about his romantic life. (I'm sure you won't hasten to correct me if I'm wrong). I choose to see it as he hasn't met the right one yet.

 Now to the Prank. I believe that something that we have not been told about had precipitated it.There is too much animosity between them. Also at 16 years old, you don't tend to think too thoroughly of the ramifications of your actions. Snape is the one who needs to get over it. (Ducking)

 POA Sirius is product of 12 years with the dementors. PTSD or not, that is going to have a strong effect on anyone. We see in GOF that he has healed to a degree and shows compassion and caring for Harry. He is coming back to his true self, the one that was such close friends with James and the others.

 I see him very similar to the character Marcus Cole of Babylon 5 both physically and personalitywise.

 Sorry to have rambled on so long but this character has sparked much in my imagination,

"sheryl"

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





From mercia at ireland.com  Fri Feb 15 19:30:38 2002
From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:30:38 -0000
Subject: What Snape knew
Message-ID: <a4jnku+em20@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35287

I've been re-reading for the umpteenth time POA (my favourite). In 
the Shrieking Shack as Remus is launching into the story he breaks 
off because there is a 'loud creak behind him' and the bedroom door 
opens of its own accord. The point at which Snape enters in Harry's 
invisibility cloak. That means he hears all the story of the three 
illegal animagi and from that point knows Sirius is an animagus. He 
also hears Remus descibe the making of the Marauders Map and list 
their nicknames though he must have known some of that before when 
he thought Harry had got it direct from the manufacturers. At any 
rate he has certainly now heard Peter described as Wormtial and some 
posts a while ago were speculating that he had heard about a fellow 
DE called Wormtail while he was in or pretending to be in 
Voldemort's service and assumed that was Sirius. Was he simply too 
angry to take in this information in the SS because in GOF he seems 
to have forgotten that Sirius was an animagus and he reacts in the 
SS as though he has no idea other than that Sirius is guilty as 
hell? Or is there any other explanation of his subsequent behaviour 
to Sirius and the bitterness of his attack on Lupin?

meglet2/Mercia





From devin.smither at yale.edu  Fri Feb 15 20:24:50 2002
From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:24:50 -0000
Subject: Head Boy & Head Girl????
In-Reply-To: <6e.17dc324c.299ec2ef@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a4jqqi+vm7s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35288

 > What's interesting is that the only Head Boys/ Girl we know of are 
all 
> Gryffindors: Bill and Percy Weasley and James and Lily (er...do we 
*know* she 
> was a Gryffindor?). Again, they are all characters relevant to the 
story and 
> to Harry's POV, so that's why we know about them. 
> 
> Eloise


Yes, we do in fact know that Lily was a Gryffindor.  Rowling said it 
in an interview, the October Scholastic one IIRC.

There was one other Head Boy we know about who was NOT a Gryffindor 
but a Slytherin.  That loveable scamp who opened the Chamber of 
Secrets and likes to play with anagrams: Tom Marvolo Riddle.

I'm pretty interested to see if either of the male members of the 
trio becomes distinguished as a Prefect, etc.  I'm rooting for Ron 
just because he's so determined to live up to his brothers' 
reputations.  I sure hope so, anyway.  It doesn't seem like either 
Ron or Harry has distinguished themselves academically (but then, 
being a Prefect may come down to a lot more than that, as others have 
said here before).

Devin




From hollydaze at btinternet.com  Fri Feb 15 20:33:29 2002
From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:33:29 -0000
Subject: Book 5 Predictions - Well someone had to do it.
References: <a4gr0i+m9h4@eGroups.com> <009a01c1b651$48cec080$a48bbc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>
Message-ID: <005801c1b660$07be1d20$a763073e@j0dhe>

No: HPFGUIDX 35289

Sorry if we can't reply to these but I presume we can!
Felicia Rickmann wrote:
> PREDICTION - ONE
> * Deep Breath *  Remus Lupin is for the high jump/chop/is a marked 
> man/on the way out i.e. will die. (This breaks my heart, I LOVE the 
> man and HOPE I'm wrong).  I did think of Dumbledore but could not 
> bring myself to associate his name with death (yet).
> 
> JUSTIFICATION 
> Someone has to die - it can't be Sirius.  Anyone, Anyone but 
> Severus... (OK so I'm stuck on him too....)

Ok well, according to a couple of websites I regularly look at, JK has stated in an couple of interviews that Lupin has a big role to play in book 7 so I'm not so sure about this one! He can't exactly play a big role if he's dead (unless he becomes a ghost?)


> PREDICTION - TWO
> They get to travel.
> 
> JUSTIFICATION
> We all need a change of scenery (too many underground tunnels & 
> visits to Hogsmead can lose their allure).  Boot camp at Durmstrang 
> or Ron re-visiting his passion for Fleur Delacour at Beauxbatons, 
> Rumania, Little Gidding, Egypt???

I like that idea, although maybe not to those places, JK ahs stated we get to visit a new "world" a totally magical one, maybe they get to travel there, although if it is only for one chapter (like the diary or the Pensieve) that would be a little disappointing. Mind I can't see a "totally new world" being a memory as that kinda contradicts itself doesn't it?

> PREDICTION - THREE
> Harry will fall in love with Cho with the field now clear of Cedric 
> Diggory, her former inamorata.   Either that or get a crush on his 
> Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher - strongly rumoured to be 
> female in OotP.
> 
> JUSTIFICATION
> He's at THAT STAGE in his life - * Girls * have already made 
> appearances in that direction (GoF) OotP just takes it further.  
> Let's just hope Ron's interpersonal skills improve in this area too!  I have to say I agree with the people who say that Harry won't go any where near Cho now because of the guilt he feels about how Cedric died. I don't think Cho is the sort of person who would accuse him or anything, far from it, I think she would be very understanding. I just think that harry will think she holds it against him, or that he will hold it against himself.

> PREDICTION - FOUR
> Mrs Dursley - in denial for most of her life - will be outed as The 
> Other Witch in the family. 
> 
> JUSTIFICATION
> None.  The idea is just too wild for words!!!!  I just want to see 
> how JKR handles it, if its true.   
Umm well there is actually, JK has stated that someone will perform magic in "dire circumstances" in a future book, someone who ahs never performed magic before. now the only people I can think it would refer to are Filch or the Dursleys. I don't really think it would have much meaning to us if it was Filch while it would be plain hilarious if one of the Dursleys did something considering how much they hate wizard folk (especially if it was Dudley their own son!!)


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




From hollydaze at btinternet.com  Fri Feb 15 20:42:01 2002
From: hollydaze at btinternet.com (Hollydaze)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:42:01 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: wizard entertainment
References: <a4il7k+vm2c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007901c1b661$3bbe6160$a763073e@j0dhe>

No: HPFGUIDX 35290

gideoner4 wrote:
<SNIP>
> >  My sister and I wonder what kind of entertainment the wizarding 
> >  world has. There was no mention of theaters, TV (at least magic   
> > TV), and movies (if muggles can have movies, wizards can have too).
> > There was mention of wizarding wireless though (and the singing 
> > sorceress Celestina Warbeck). But aside from that, what could be 
> > the wizard equivalent of movie, TV, and theater? And what about the 
> > computer? I mean, they have magic! Surely they have something like 
> > the internet?

Grey Wolf wrote:
> There is no mention in canon of anything that would work like a 
> computer (no computer games for wizards, sorry!) but there have been 
> some rumours flying around about a wizard equivalent to Internet, 
> although I don't remember if it's got any meat on it (MAYBE it was 
> said by JKR in an interview, but don't quote me on that). 

Yes it was said in an interview. JK said something along the lines of "wizards have something similar to the internet but a lot more interesting" (paraphrased). There was no mention of which book we'll find out about this in though.

HOLLYDAZE!!!


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




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Fri Feb 15 20:50:26 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:50:26 -0000
Subject: Prediction List for SHIPPING. Short and sweet for future reference.
Message-ID: <a4jsai+shua@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35291

1. Ron and Hermione relationship emerges.
2. Harry and Ginny relationship emerges.
3. Harry and Cho relationship emerges.
4. Hermione and Viktor Krum relationship emerges.
5. Ginny and Neville relationship emerges.
6. Evidence of LOLLIPOPS surfaces.
7. Evidence of FLIRTIAC surfaces.
8. Percy and Penny relationship further explored.
9. Evidence of CUPIDSBLUDGER surfaces.
10. Harry and/or Ron develops crush on female DADA teacher.
11. FITD
12. Fleur catches someone's heart.

I have excluded pairings that no-one seriously believes in or, at 
least, doesn't believe there will ever be evidence for. Otherwise the 
list will end up useless for checking against OotP. 

Anyway, I propose we do the list in categories like this. Snape's 
Redemption would be one category. The Prank would be another etc.

Eileen




From midwife34 at aol.com  Thu Feb 14 14:15:11 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:15:11 -0000
Subject: Would Lucius have gone on a Voldy hunt?
In-Reply-To: <a4feqa+5438@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4ggpf+bqbl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35292

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uilnslcoap" <devin.smither at y...> wrote:
>> 
> I would have agreed with you until a couple of days ago, when I 
> realized that *dun, dun, dun!* Lucius gave Ginny Riddle's diary.
> 
> Now, I suppose we can say that he was really doing it more to get 
> Ginny to murder some Mudbloods and ruin Arthur's reputation 
> (tarnished with Muggle love as it already is) than to bring old 
Voldy 
> back, but he must have known that was going to happen.
> 
> (Side note: I suppose if Riddle had succeeded, he would've tracked 
> down the undead form of his older self and somehow reunited with it)
> 
> This begs the question: why does he seem to have pretty cold feet 
> about the whole idea of Voldemort coming back at any other time?
> 
> I'd say it's because he's in public almost every time we encounter 
> him.  Even when someone shoots the Dark Mark into the air and 
you're 
> EAGER to have Voldemort back, you don't run to it because you don't 
> want to get caught.
> 
> I don't think I entirely understand Lucius's seeming reluctance to 
> bring Voldy back to power, but it seems his CoS antics at least 
> suggest he was trying to engender it in some way, even if he wasn't 
> as brimmingly enthusiastic as Crouch Jr.  However, if someone has a 
> better idea about his motives in giving Ginny the diary in CoS, I'd 
> like to hear it.
> 
>I think I have a guess at why Lucius gave Ginny the diary. I think 
Lucius, since he collects articles related to the dark arts and keeps 
them hidden under his dining room in a secret room, just happened to 
come across the TR diary. We aren't sure how he aquires the diary 
because it doesn't tell us in canon, but just insinuates it by the 
scene where he and Draco go to the store in -can't remember name of 
Alley, but it sounds similar to Diagon-to sell some items.

Anyway, Lucius is angry because the MOM is still searching wizard 
houses for articles related to the dark arts.Many of these artifacts 
are very valuable, Lucuis has a very expensive collection and doesn't 
want to loose his investment. If I am not mistaken, Arthur Weasley 
was related in some way to the department responsible for 
conviscating these items. Since this is a hobby for Lucius, he 
resents it, and wants to discredit the members of this branch of 
office. 

Lucius is also not happy with the Dumbledore as Head of Hogwarts for 
several reasons: He allows wizards of muggle parentage in to the 
school, he is not happy with the curiculum because it doesn't teach 
the dark arts, just the DADA class. 

Lucius cooks up the diary fiasco to discredit both Arthur Weasley and 
Dumbledore as the main motivation. I don't think his intentions were 
specifically aimed at helping Voldemort at this point, but that 
Lucius had his own agenda in getting rid of these people who can 
possibly hinder the amount of influence he has in the wizarding 
community. Lucuis doesn't need Voldy as much as the other DE's as he 
already has wealth to buy whatever position he seeks out, and the 
reputation of his family name to open doors for him in wizarding 
society. Like Pettigrew, I think Lucuis sided with Voldy more out of 
convenience, and as an " insurance policy" to further his social 
status in the wizarding community, and to also achieve some of his 
own goals , as Voldy has no love for muggles either. Don't you 
remember Lucuis telling Draco to try to stay on Harry's good side? 
Lucuis is all about politics, he wants to hedge his bets by playing 
both sides of the political fence in order to preserve or further his 
own social status and influence. In the future, I can see Lucius 
suddenly aiding Dumbledore and Harry if it looks like that side has 
the advantage in the upcoming war in the remainder of the series.With 
this in mind, I would say that Lucius had a primarily selfish agenda 
of his own in cooking up the plot of introducing the diary to Ginny 
Weasley.

Jo Ellen 




From Brwneil at aol.com  Fri Feb 15 20:57:00 2002
From: Brwneil at aol.com (Brwneil at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:57:00 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Prediction List for SHIPPING. Short and sweet for future ...
Message-ID: <b4.6a16e48.299ed01c@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35293

I find it strange that your list doesn't contain the possibility of a 
Harry/Hermoine relationship.  No, he didn't quite act the fool at the dance 
as Ron did.  But he did notice the very pretty girl with Victor and Hermoine 
did kiss him at the train station.  
Neil



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





From mercia at ireland.com  Fri Feb 15 21:31:33 2002
From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 21:31:33 -0000
Subject: Wands, Meanings and Where it All Could Lead...
In-Reply-To: <a4jj3h+bnbl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4junl+mmc9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35294

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "abigailnus" <abigailnus at y...> wrote:
>>> 
> In other words, in Potterverse, evil isn't represented by death 
and good by life, but almost the other way around.  
> Nicolas Flamel, a friend of Dumbldore's and hence a good guy, 
destroys the Philosopher's Stone which Voldemort 
> covets.  It's no accident, in my opinion, that Rowling changed the 
Stone's function so that in destroying it Flamel 
> accepts death.  This allows Dumbledore to state, so early in the 
series and with such importance, that "death is but 
> the next great adventure."  Voldemort is evil not because he 
causes death but because he refuese to accept it - in 
> trying to become immortal he becomes inhuman.

I'm not sure that I would want to say that in the Potterverse evil 
is represented by life and good by death but I agree that one of the 
signs of Voldemort's evil is his unwillingness to accept 'the next 
great adventure' and his desire to hold on to immortality in this 
life. I think this implies a belief by JKR in some sort of afterlife 
(more than what might be implied by the ghosts' existance) and that 
clinging to this life is not good. I very much like your comment 
that 'in trying to become immortal (Voldemort) becomes inhuman.' 
Seems a very good way of putting it. 
> 
> The pheonix, then, represents not immortality but resurrection - 
life *through* death, not without it, just as Harry's life 
> is saved through the death of his mother.  To be a dark wizard, 
then, is to dispute the natural order of things - that 
> everything must change and die - and attempt to change it.  
Ignoring the relgious connotations of this claim (and 
> that's some mighty big ignoring that I'm only managing by dint of 
being Jewish) I think this is going to be a theme in 
> the series - death is only truly death when there's no one left 
who is willing to rise out of the ashes and try again.  I 
> think this ties in to Dumbledore's speech at the end of GoF, in 
which he says words to the effect of "in order for evil to 
> triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing."

This is fascinating isn't it. Though as a Christian I don't want to 
ignore the religious overtones of resurrection but on the contrary 
am waiting with considerable impatience to see what JKR is going to 
do with all this.
> 
> 
> I realise I've made very little sense - it's all very confused in 
my mind.  And I haven't really dealt with your theory.  
> Considering my thoughts on the life/death issue I feel very 
strongly that Dumbledore was stating some basic truth of 
> Potterverse when he said that no power can bring back the dead - 
accepting that death is coming is part of what 
> makes the good guys good guys.  It's perhaps not impossible, 
though, that Harry will one day be able to block the 
> unblockable AK curse (excepting the time he already did it as a 
fluke of wands.)

I would agree wholeheartedly that death and the nature of death is a 
major theme in the books and as I said I am deeply intrigued by what 
she intends to do with it. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Great 
stuff isn't it? Wonderful too that a writer for children is tackling 
such huge issues of life and death, morality, good and evil when 
writers of adult fiction these days seem to shy away from big themes.

meglet2/Mercia




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Fri Feb 15 21:55:50 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 21:55:50 -0000
Subject: Prediction List for SHIPPING. Short and sweet for future ...
In-Reply-To: <b4.6a16e48.299ed01c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a4k056+feqg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35295

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Brwneil at a... wrote:
> I find it strange that your list doesn't contain the possibility of 
a 
> Harry/Hermoine relationship.  No, he didn't quite act the fool at 
the dance 
> as Ron did.  But he did notice the very pretty girl with Victor and 
Hermoine 
> did kiss him at the train station.  
> Neil
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sorry, that was completely accidental. /me tries to ward off the crowd 
of angry H/H SHIPPERS. That had absolutely NOTHING to do with me being 
R/H. I thought I had written it. Yes, I'll add it to the list, which 
I'll put in files. Right, put those wands down.

Eileen




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Fri Feb 15 22:02:42 2002
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 15 Feb 2002 22:02:42 -0000
Subject: New file uploaded to HPforGrownups 
Message-ID: <1013810562.142.33087.w56@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35296


Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the HPforGrownups 
group.

  File        : /Predictions for OotP/SHIPPING predictions 
  Uploaded by : lucky_kari <lucky_kari at yahoo.ca> 
  Description :  

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Predictions%20for%20OotP/SHIPPING%20predictions 

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

lucky_kari <lucky_kari at yahoo.ca>
 







From ladjables at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 15 22:13:29 2002
From: ladjables at yahoo.com (Ama Byer)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:13:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Prediction List for SHIPPING and others.
In-Reply-To: <a4jsai+shua@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020215221329.43524.qmail@web20407.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35297


--- lucky_kari <lucky_kari at yahoo.ca> wrote:
> 1. Ron and Hermione relationship emerges.
> 2. Harry and Ginny relationship emerges.
> 3. Harry and Cho relationship emerges.
> 4. Hermione and Viktor Krum relationship emerges.
> 5. Ginny and Neville relationship emerges.
> 6. Evidence of LOLLIPOPS surfaces.
> 7. Evidence of FLIRTIAC surfaces.
> 8. Percy and Penny relationship further explored.
> 9. Evidence of CUPIDSBLUDGER surfaces.
> 10. Harry and/or Ron develops crush on female DADA
> teacher.
> 11. FITD
> 12. Fleur catches someone's heart.
> 
> I have excluded pairings that no-one seriously
> believes in or, at 
> least, doesn't believe there will ever be evidence
> for. Otherwise the 
> list will end up useless for checking against OotP. 
> 
> Anyway, I propose we do the list in categories like
> this. Snape's 
> Redemption would be one category. The Prank would be
> another etc.
> 
> Eileen


What about Hagrid and Madam Maxime? 
Some of my predictions, probably mentioned before, for
non-humanfolk:
1.House-Elf revolt
2.Norbert returns to save the day
3.Hagrid and momma Fridwulfa reuinite
4.Ghosts become more important
5.Dementors overtake Azkaban

The prank:
1.Snape's talent for curses triggers Sirius' now
infamous trick.

That's all I can think of for now.
Ama

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Got something to say? Say it better with Yahoo! Video Mail 
http://mail.yahoo.com



From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Fri Feb 15 22:22:08 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:22:08 -0000
Subject: Avery and Ambushes
Message-ID: <a4k1mi+sck3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35298

>From the brig of the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS, where she has been put to 
meditate her nearly accomplished mutiny, and to be restrained till the 
madness has passed.

----------

> LOL!  What, you mean there was somebody who *didn't* view the 
Mystery 
> of the Fourth Man as the central enigma of the entire novel?

No, I said, "Crouch Jr., Lestranges, and another DE" to myself, and 
never even thought of it again. I also ask my long-suffering brother 
to explain commercials when we're watching TV. "But why was the guy 
standing there with the beer can?"

> I favor Thin Nervous Eye-Darty Man as Avery myself.  But the Fourth 
> Man theory is also willing to accomodate those who favor Thin 
Nervous 
> Eye-Darty Man as Lestrange, and Thick-set Blank-Stare Man as (an 
> already bordering on catatonic? or merely in a state of despair?) 
> Avery.
> 
> Fourth Man is very inclusive that way.

True, but I would not feel that good if we partnered the renowned Mrs. 
Lestrange with "thin nervous eye-darty man". Of course, I could add 
dealing with an idiotic husband, who messed up all their plans and 
told Lucius Malfoy about the Voldemort hunt, who passed the 
information on to the authorities. (One of my little pet 
non-canon-related theories.) 

No, I'm for thick-set blank-stare man as Mr. Lestrange. How come 
no-one waxes eloquent about Mr. Lestrange, btw?


> Hey, young Crouch *could* have been innocent -- of torturing the 
> Longbottoms, at any rate.  No way to know for sure, is there?  He 
> sure seems like a sadist in GoF, but I imagine that ten years spent 
> under the Imperius Curse could do a lot of funny things to your 
>mind.

I want to keep Crouch Jr. involved, since it makes the Neville/Crouch 
Jr. link more poignant. But maybe, Crouch Jr. wasn't strictly involved 
in the actual torturing. Perhaps, he agreed that they should go after 
Frank Longbottom, but he and Avery objected to torturing Mrs. 
Longbottom, who, btw, was clearly not an auror. Or just Avery. Hmmm. 
"Nerveless Hysterics" aren't usually that great at torturing people 
when push comes to shove, come to think about it.

What if Avery's clearing included hard evidence that he hadn't been 
involved in the torturings? Wizarding evidence of DNA's stature. 

> I think that if that's what Snape's gotta do, then he'll manage just 
> fine.  He's got tons of great excuses he can draw on, and unlike 
> Avery, he isn't a Nerveless Hysteric.  It woudn't surprise me, in 
> fact, if he managed to pull it off without having to endure even a 
> single Cruciatus -- although unlike Cindy, I find this notion more 
> relieving than disappointing.

/me tries to square this with the Elkins who was chanting "BLOODY 
AMBUSH! BLOODY AMBUSH!" and fails.

> > "Avery-Nott-Crabbe-Goyle-"
> 
> > "You are merely repeating the names of those who were cleared of 
> > being Death Eaters thirteen years ago," said Fudge angrily. "You 
> > could have found those names in old reports of the trials!" 
> 
> <Elkins nods grimly>
> 
> Eeeeee-yup.  That's canon, all right.  And since I can think of no 
> reason why Fudge would be lying there, we've just got to accept it.

Then, we have two suggested solutions.

Elkins: 
> Because what you have to understand about Fudge is that he was swept 
> into office on precisely the same wave of public sentiment that led 
> to Avery's pardon -- a Bleeding Heart backlash that _did not last._
AND
> So as things turned out, Avery's pardon did not prove to be at all 
> the great political coup that Crouch's successor had hoped for.  Far 
> from it: it was a bit of an embarrassment for everyone,
AND
> So *this* is the reason that Fudge mentions Avery's original
> acquittal but not his more recent (and more notorious) pardon.  To 
> mention the latter would touch far too closely on the subject of his 
> own rather dubious claims to the position as Minister of Magic, as 
> well as reminding everyone present of one of his own failed attempts 
> to manipulate public sentiment for political advantage -- and that's 
> a can of worms he most decidedly does *not* want opened right now. 
> Not with these allegations of Voldemort's return and all.  His 
> position could be getting unstable enough as it is in the very near 
> future, without dragging in all of *that* old business.


Whereas Cindy writes:
>However, I can see through my binoculars that all is not well in
>the Fourth Man two-person kayak. Indeed, it appears that the Fourth 
>Man has fallen overboard and is flailing helplessly, unable to haul 
>his ample backside to the beach. 

That's it. Dudley Dursley was the fourth man!

AND

> I think we can dismiss Fudge's comment and we need not conclude that 
> Avery was "acquitted" 13 years ago as Fudge says.  Not because Fudge 
> is lying.  Or stupid.  Or remembering incorrectly.  No, we can 
> dismiss Fudge's remark for a completely different reason.
> 
> The reason that we needn't put much stock in Fudge's statement has 
to 
> do with JKR.  Um, how can I put this delicately?  Er, JKR, bless 
her, 
> wouldn't know an acquittal if it bit her in the behind.  Trial, 
> acquittal, conviction, sentencing, pardon, plea bargain -- it's all 
> the same to her.  

That is, I am afraid, true.

AND

> No, I see no reason to think that Fudge is referring to an actual 
> acquittal of Avery following a trial.  As I said earlier, Fudge 
> probably pardoned Avery, and Fudge uses "acquittal" to mean "got 
> off".  The question, then, is whether this happened 13 years ago or 
> at some other time.

AND

> The Lexicon list Barty Crouch Jr.'s birthday as 1962.  So if he is 
> 19 when he goes to Azkaban, that would be 1981.  As Fourth Man Avery 
> would have been arrested at the same time as young Crouch, this is 
> also in 1981.

Where does the lexicon get the birthday? Is it just an assumption from 
a 1981 date?


> So . . . Crouch was sent to prison right after the Longbottoms were 
> tortured in 1981 (on the strength of Neville's Reverse Memory Charm 
> testimony, mind), and he was pardoned when Fudge became Minister of 
> Magic shortly thereafter.  Avery is a Lucky Man.  He has a 
first-rate 
> lawyer and a lobbyist on staff.

Cindy. I see a problem. How does Avery get off if Neville with his 
magically enhanced testimony fingers him and Crouch? 

And Crouch certainly has to "die" quickly to get this theory going. 
No, too short. I like Elkins's idea better. Sorry.

Other interesting ideas.

Elkins:
>Sirius, you will remember, has come by the majority of his 
> information on this subject *after* his escape from Azkaban ("This 
is 
> mostly stuff I've found out since I got out"); it was evidently not 
> an incident that was much gibbered about by the imprisoned DEs.  And 
> Sirius' suggestion that Crouch might just "have been in the wrong 
> place at the wrong time" is telling as well -- wherever would he 
have 
> come by this idea?  Why, from Avery's own defense, of course!

Very good. It's almost <gasp> canonical evidence.

Then, Elkins and Cindy reconcile to allow Avery to have a secondary 
job in the DMC. I'm no-one to complain, but no-one liked my suggestion 
that he works for Bagman (ever-so-evil or not) and is the new Minister 
of Magical Sports and Games. However, the secondary job probably works 
better for Avery to be introduced as the guy we don't know. More on 
that later, but did DMC Avery clean up things at Godric's Hollow?

Cindy writes:
> Eh, I'm flexible here, but Avery could have Voldemort's wand without 
> it presenting any problems for Fourth Man.  Avery, as you say, has 
> lost his zest for life as a DE.  This happens as soon as he is sure 
> Voldemort is gone.  So Avery obtained Voldemort's wand at Godric's 
> Hollow and tampered with Sirius' wand.  But as soon as he knew 
> Voldemort was really, really dead, he gave the wand to someone.  It 
> was "hot," and Avery didn't want it.  
> 
> I just can't think of who Avery might have given it to.

Mrs. Lestrange, who decided that the wand could somehow help them find 
V. again?

Elkins adds:
> He was particularly motivated to do this, you see, because Sirius 
had 
> once played a rather nasty prank on him back in their school days, 
> and...

Florence, you see, was Avery's sister. 

> But I'm not willing to give you Avery-Retrieved-Voldemort's-Wand-
From-
> Godric's-Hollow as well, because that would run completely counter 
to 
> the entire "Avery has avoided the other DEs like the plague ever 
> since his release from Azkaban" aspect of the Fourth Man theory, 
> which is central. 

I don't follow you here. Wouldn't the wand-retreiving be back when 
Avery still was enthused enough to hang around the Lestranges? 

> Pettigrew can have Voldemort's wand all to himself. <snerk>

True, it's still got to get back to Voldemort after all in the end.

We could have it.

1. Pettigrew picks up wand.
2. Gives it to Voldemort.

OR

1. Avery picks up wand 
2. Gives to Crouch Jr.
3. Confiscated by Crouch Sr., who keeps it around just in case.
4. Voldemort gets it back when he visits the Crouch residence.

Back to Elkins on Avery's job:
> Mmmmmm.  Yeah, okay.  I'm willing to run with this, if only because 
> it offers yet *more* reason for Fudge to have wanted to avoid the 
> issue of Avery's second acquittal altogether.  Probably even Fudge 
> has come to suspect, way down deep in his very heart of hearts, that 
> Avery really was guilty all along.

But Avery really has repented, so Fudge isn't afraid, and feels sorry 
for him, as the description below warrants.

> He's still a lowly (but NOT yet middle-
> aged!) desk drone, mistrusted and ill-respected by his co-workers, 
> who occasionally gather around the water cooler to mutter darkly 
> among themselves while shooting him suspicious glances.  (He takes 
> far too many sick days, too, and occasionally goes on extended 
> personal leaves of absence for "reasons of emotional health.")

/me begins to cry and purchases a S.Y.N.C.H.O.P.H.A.N.T.S. badge.

> Yeah, okay.  So if any bit of plot does revolve around Unrecognized 
> DE Avery, I guess it'll have to be a fairly minor one, and take 
place 
> outside of Hogwarts.
> 
> <sigh>
> 
> Boy.  Good thing I didn't put any money down on that one.  Isn't it

Now, wait a second. What plot do we know that is trying to pass itself 
off as a fairly minor one but obviously is central to the story? One 
that's taking place at the Ministry of Magic, conveniently enough.

The Saga of Percy Weatherby

Percy, now the youngest ever Department Head, has Avery shuffled into 
his department. Who wouldn't try to pawn Avery off on the newcomer who 
doesn't know the ins and outs of things? Avery is so ill respected at 
the Ministry that - Horror of Horrors! - everyone except Percy calls 
him by his yet to be determined first name. Unfortunately, Avery, at 
V's command, gets rather close to Weatherby, resulting in misfortunes 
for our side. When HRH finally visit the Ministry, which will happen 
I'm sure, we'll have a moment of irony, when they meet Avery, and some 
office worker makes some remark about him using his given name, that 
would have told HRH the game was up, if the last name had been used. 

Now, that's uncanonical. 

On to the bloody ambush:
>I mean, surely Big Bad Evil Voldemort would be
> perfectly willing to sacrifice a couple of his younger Death Eaters 
> to help his valuable spy trick muggle-loving old fool Dumbledore, 
> wouldn't he?  (Hell, even *I'd* be willing to do that, and I'm just 
a 
> SYCOPHANT, not an Evil Overlord.)  And surely Dumbledore would 
> realize that.  So Snape's willingness to lead his colleagues into an 
> ambush wouldn't even be a very *good* proof of his loyalty.

True. Sorry, Cindy. I'll have to retract my support for the ambush 
being the loyalty proof. 

I'll skip over the ambush material. It seems to be well thought out, 
and I agree with Cindy:
>(who is too tired to even *think* about sorting out the ambush 
>and the cells, and who doesn't know where Elkins gets the energy)

Elkins: of BLOODY AMBUSH! BLOODY AMBUSH! and GLORIOUS FIREFIGHT! fame
> Oh, good Lord.  When precisely did I *get* like this?  
> 
> Cindy?  Are you *sure* there was nothing in that brandy?

I've been wondering that too. Something is wrong with me. This is not 
me, the person who cringes when Wile E. Coyote hits the tarmac. 

Kudos on the subversive Neville-Crouch theory, but does it explain why 
Crouch seeks Neville out?

Cindy wrote:
> Now move over, 
> because cramming three people into a two-person kayak is a bit 
>tight.

Four in the kayak, actually. 

Cindy: Move over!
Avery: I can't. (Begins to cry.)
Cindy: Toughen up, will you. I bet you eat ice-cream straight from 
the carton while lying in bed
Avery: Forgive me! (shrieking) Cindy, forgive me!

Eileen

PS I still can't get over the fact that we've seriously gone into 
analysing an almost non-existent character. 




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Feb 15 22:27:24 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:27:24 -0000
Subject: Canon evidence for Snape being a vampire
Message-ID: <a4k20c+s65s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35299


Snape as vampire: the evidence

SS/PS
Quirrel says he has to pick up a book on vampires  ch. 5 
Hagrid says Quirrel met vampires in the Black Forest (n.b. the 
Black Forest is in Germany, not Romania)  ch.5 
Quirrel's classroom smells strongly of garlic  ch.8 
Everyone says it's to ward off the vampire Q. met  in Romania 
and is afraid will be coming back to get him one of these days.  
ch. 8 
The Weasley twins insist the turban is stuffed full of garlic. ch 8 
Snape's eyes are black, cold and empty ch 8 
Snape has the gift of keeping the class silent ch 8  
He speaks of human veins  ch 8
Snape wears a long black cloak which sweeps ch 8 
Snape bleeds ch 11
Snape watches Quidditch ch 11
Snape is roaming the corridors after dark ch 12
Snape referees a Quidditch match ch 13
He exits the castle as the sun sets ch 13
Snape tells Q, "You don't want me for your enemy...you know 
perfectly well what I mean." SS ch 13 
Q. says Snape was "swooping around like an overgrown bat" SS 
ch 17

CoS
Snape's skin is sallow. His nose is hooked ch 5
Snape gives the impression he can read minds ch 5
Snape's face is gaunt ch 9
Snape comes "gliding over like a large and malevolent bat" ch 
11

PoA
Sirius is gaunt ch 2
Harry had  "never met a vampire", but has seen pictures of them 
in DADA. ch 3
The photograph in the Daily Prophet of Sirius Black, "with his 
waxy white skin" looks just like a vampire ch3
Snape's robes billow ch 7
blood flavored lollipops "they're for vampires, I expect"  ch 10
Lupin's vampire essay discussed by Harry and Neville  after 
Snape's werewolf essay ch 14
Neville says he doesn't understand "that thing about the garlic" 
ch 14
Snapes robes swish ch 14
Snape's teeth are yellowish and uneven ch 14
Lupin mentions the vampire essay in front of Snape ch 14
Snape watches Quidditch from the stands.  ch 15
Snape's robes swish ch. 22
Dean Thomas suggests a vampire will teach DADA next year ch 
22
Snape constantly flexes his fingers as if wishing he could place 
them around Harry's throat ch 22

GoF
Viktor Krum, thin, dark, sallow-skinned, with a large curved nose, 
looks like an overgrown bird of prey ch 8
Krum flies as though he was "unsupported and weightless." ch 
8
No non-human creature may use or carry a wand ch 9
Rita Skeeter wrote, a week before the QWC, that the Ministry 
should be stamping out vampires. They are covered by 
paragraph 12 of the Guidelines for the Treatment of Non-Wizard 
Part-Humans. ch 10
Moody says Lupin reported the DADA class had covered 
"Boggarts, Red Caps, hinkypunks, grindylows, kappas and 
werewolves." (Vampires are *not* mentioned) ch 14
Hermione's teeth expand. Snape says he sees no difference ch 
18
Snape has a pulse ch 25
Snape maintains his right to prowl the school after dark ch 25
Harry wonders if Snape can turn himself into a bat ch 29
Ron says he wouldn't put it past him ch 29
Snape looks "slightly paler than usual" ch 36
FB
The centaurs objected to being classed as Beings along with 
vampires  p. xiii

QTA
No wizard can fly unaided in human form. p1
A winged creature animagus can fly, but a wizard who is merely 
transfigured into a bat would lose human intelligence p1
A Quidditch referee must be an expert flier p31
The Transylvania vs Flanders QWC saw the release of  "a 
hundred blood-sucking vampire bats" by the Transylvanian 
Captain p 40

Rowling's Snape Sketch as shown on Harry Potter and Me
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/hpforgrownups/vwp?.dir=/
Harry+Potter+%26+Me&.dnm=profsnape.jpg&.src=gr&.view=t&.h
ires=t
In the photos section of this Yahoo group.

Allowing for the exaggerated nose, the  sketch recalls Romanian 
born Bela Lugosi in his role as the Transylvanian vampire Count 
Dracula. There are many pictures of Lugosi as Dracula on the 
web, but I can give no links since I am unaware of their copyright 
status.

To summarize: 

Potterverse vampire lore:
Vampires exist in the Potterverse. They are the among the first 
Beings mentioned in the text, just after Wizards and Goblins. 
They are associated with Romania,Transylvania and the Black 
Forest .  They are hated and feared by many. Centaurs oppose 
them. There are products made and sold for their use. Their 
appearance is described as pale and gaunt. Harry has seen a 
vampire's picture in DADA, but has never "met" one. Vampires 
are studied in Defense Against the  Dark Arts, but are not 
considered Wizards. Garlic is used against vampires. 

The pros:
Rowling has built associations between vampires, bats,  flying 
ability, eastern European origins, the Hollywood concept of the 
vampire's attributes ( pale, thin, cloaked in black, slick hair, 
hypnotic abilities, nocturnal habits, menacing appearance) and 
Severus Snape. Vampires are mentioned numerous times but 
no vampire character has been introduced, or so it seems.

Since vampires are hated and feared by many, and may not have 
the right to carry wands, Snape may have good reason to 
disguise what he is.

Quirrel may have guarded his classroom and his turban  with 
garlic to discourage Snape from investigating them. Snape is 
active at night and is seen outside the castle only in connection 
with Quidditch. Attention is drawn to the appearance of Snape's 
teeth, and to  the fact that in the Wizarding World, the appearance 
of teeth can be altered. Lupin's assignment of the vampire essay 
follows Snape's assignment of the werewolf essay and was not 
included in his list of subjects given to Moody. Lupin may have 
ssigned the essay for the same reason Snape assigned his: to 
clue someone in to the fact that Snape is a vampire.

Snape's lack of  the traditional vampire attributes of fangs and a 
sensitivity to sunlight may be explained in various ways.

1) There is no canon support for the idea that Potterverse 
vampires have fangs or avoid sunlight.

2) Snape avoids sunlight generally but uses a potion to protect 
himself when he can't avoid going outside. The fangs are either 
retractable, or also altered by magic.

3) Snape is part Vampire, as Hagrid is part giant and Fleur is 
part Veela. Potterverse crossbreeds display only some 
characteristics of the non-human magical parent.

4) The sun is not mentioned as visible in the sky when Snape is 
out of doors. Daytime itself doesn't count, similar to the way that 
Lupin does not transform until the full moon becomes visible in 
the sky.

The cons:

The whole idea is silly. Vampires belong in Buffy or The Vampire 
Chronicles, not the Potterverse.  We have already had a werewolf 
in disguise who uses a potion, having a vampire in disguise 
would be too much. All that swooping and swishing and the bat 
metaphors applied to Snape are just Rowling painting a picture 
in words. At most the vampire references are a red herring.

Only the Weasley twins think there is garlic in Quirrel's turban. 
Snape would not be put off by a vegetable in any case. Hermione 
would have learned what  Snape is and told the boys what she 
knew. Snape would not have dared to reveal Lupin's secret if he 
knew Lupin might reveal his. Vampires are traditionally undead, 
Snape, who has a pulse and bleeds, is clearly alive. Snape has 
been seen outdoors and everybody knows that to be outdoors 
during the day is fatal or injurious to vampires. Vampires are 
magically afflicted wizards, not a separate race and therefore 
cannot breed true.

The counterarguments:
Rowling obviously intends to deal with vampires, since she has 
mentioned them prominently several times. Rowling delights in 
disguised characters and probably has not tired of this device.
If the vampire references were a typical Rowling red herring, 
Harry himself would consider whether Snape is a vampire. He 
has not.

Potterverse creatures have curious weaknesses. The crowing of 
a rooster will kill a Basilisk, why shouldn't garlic repel vampires?  
Hermione has kept knowledge to herself before at the school's 
request and may be hiding what she knows. Snape is very 
daring and was willing to take the risk that Lupin might out him. 
Nobody would believe a werewolf anyway. Some creatures 
considered undead in tradition, such as Veela, can breed with 
humans in the Potterverse. If  Potterverse vampires were dead, 
they would be classed as Spirits, not Beings, by the Ministry of 
Magic. If they were magically afflicted wizards, Percy would not 
call them Non-Wizards.

Well, there you have it. Not conclusive by any means, but food for 
thought.

Pippin
succumbing to her inner L.O.O.N.





From moongirlk at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 15 22:32:34 2002
From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:32:34 -0000
Subject: anti-SHIP: Ginny griping
In-Reply-To: <000e01c1b5ce$68f8a2a0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a4k2a2+pa8n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35300

I just lost my post upon hitting send, so am trying again - please 
forgive if this shows up twice.

I said:

> >Dude, woah Nelly and what the-?
> >Are we still talking about Ginny or is there some (major) 
projection 
> >going on here?  Who are these "people like Ginny" and how exactly 
are 
> >they like her (and what did they do to you, you poor thing?)? 

Laura replied contritely:
> 
> *blushes* okay, I was getting really rant-y there. I'm really, 
>*really* sorry if I offended anyone.  I needn't have gotten so, 
>erm..personal about it all. *hopeful smile* Please don't hate me.
> 

Impossible.  I gave up hating people for Lent.  Seriously, though, I 
wasn't upset or anything, just confused and amused.  It seemed clear 
there was something going on there, and I rather mischeviously teased 
when I asked about it - didn't mean to pick on you at all.  I'm sorry!

> What I was really trying to say was that from what little 
>characterization we have of Ginny in canon, I have come to view her 
>as a certain sort of stereotype.  

This is the interesting point.  What is the stereotype - is there a 
certain set of characteristics?  A general attitude?  Something else 
entirely?

>Ignoring any problems I have with people that come under this 
>stereotype IRL *sheepish grin*, I was trying to point out that 
>Ginny, while she may be *genuinely* a sweet girl, also has many 
>flaws that can cause allot of harm to herself and the people around 
>her. 

But again, which flaws do you mean?

>Many people seem find Ginny to be harmless, but in my opinion, >the 
>qualities that make her such a sweet girl can also be dangerous >in 
>certain situations.

I know my song is getting rather repetitive (feeling a bit like the 
Police, in fact), but... which qualities?  What situations?  Not to 
badger you, but I'd love to know what you mean.

> Furthermore, it kind of irks me when people assume that the 
>majority of young girls are like Ginny.  I wasn't, and allot of my 
>friends weren't either.  

While I'm still not sure what you're idea of being "like Ginny" is, 
it's pretty clear based on our disparate reactions to her that it's 
different from mine, and probably our friend Sandi's as well.  Oh 
Sandi, dear Sandi - where have you gone?  I feel bad putting words 
into your mouth, but... I *think* she was just saying that Ginny's 
fairly typical, and possibly *more* typical than Hermione.  I do 
agree with that.  

> Also, in case you haven't noticed, I tend to get a little snippish 
>when people insult Hermione. *ducks head* Again, I'm sorry, I was 
>out of line.  If anyone feels the need to have me grovel at their 
>feet, I'm all for it.
 
Laura I hate that I made you feel the need to grovel.  Totally 
unecessary and I hear it embarrasses Sven, the Coast Guard commander 
who was just dispatched here to direct SHIPping traffic.  Here - have 
a chocolate frog on me and I promise to try not to pick on you so 
much next time!

kimberly
who's just realized she's kind of a meanie




From editor at texas.net  Fri Feb 15 22:34:26 2002
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:34:26 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What Snape knew
References: <a4jnku+em20@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <024901c1b670$edcb4a80$d37663d1@texas.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35301

Mercia wrote

> I've been re-reading for the umpteenth time POA (my favourite). In
> the Shrieking Shack as Remus is launching into the story he breaks
> off because there is a 'loud creak behind him' and the bedroom door
> opens of its own accord. The point at which Snape enters in Harry's
> invisibility cloak. That means he hears all the story of the three
> illegal animagi and from that point knows Sirius is an animagus.

Yes, but not much else. This is all he learns. Just for the purpose of
edifying the masses (waves at the masses), I have yet again lifted the text
of my original post #15233, What Snape Knew and When.

So before any of you start ragging on Snape again, that he heard the truth
and just chose to ignore it, look and see what it can be said with certainty
that Snape really did hear. He was either not yet in the room, or out cold,
for the revelations that would have allowed him to entertain any of what
*we* know is the truth. I do not believe that he'd lurk outside the door to
listen....he's invisible, he hears Lupin's voice and knows he's human, so he
can't be scented, and he's too eager to catch both Sirius and Lupin (as
accomplice) that I think he'd come straight in when he got to the door.

But onward. All you old listies, who have heard this over and over again,
you can stop reading now and save yourself some quality time. For you lucky
folk who have never had the immense pleasure of reading this, I sat at the
computer and went through the chapter paragraph-by-paragraph. Wonder how I
had the time...?

Begin quoting earlier message:

Okay, I did this once before, but I don't seem to be very good at the
message search. I didn't do it in such detail, anyway. So here is the
sequence of events in the Shrieking Shack, with the section that Snape
heard pointed out. He didn't hear much.

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.

--end of old post.

You all knew I was going to do that. I bet that's why nobody else said
anything yet. That one stupid post is becoming my claim to fame; I must do
something else noteworthy or brilliant in the next ten years or so. Somebody
remind me.

--Amanda




From jmmears at prodigy.net  Fri Feb 15 22:49:06 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:49:06 -0000
Subject: Over Fry, Over Dale, As they read us Potter's tale!
In-Reply-To: <00ac01c1b652$473f7880$a48bbc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>
Message-ID: <a4k392+4prn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35302


I have all 4 books on cd (the Jim Dale versions) and have enjoyed 
them very much on long car journeys.  However, I was curious about 
the S. Fry versions so I ordered PS from Amazon.com.uk and became an 
instant convert.  I was always a little bothered by Dale's over-the-
top characterizations, particularly by the way he had Hermione say 
Harry's name (Haaaarrrrry).  The Fry version is much drier and IMO 
funnier.  I somehow imagine his interpretations to be much closer to 
JKR's vision, and more truly British.  I'd love to get the rest of 
the Fry/UK cds, but for some reason they are much pricier than the 
American versions, even before the shipping charges.  I've been 
hoping they'll show up on ebay sometime.

Jo Serenadust




From theennead at attbi.com  Fri Feb 15 23:40:24 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 23:40:24 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_SHIP:___Florence,_Bertha_and_C.U.P.I.D.=92S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R.?=
In-Reply-To: <a4je59+81i3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4k698+sej1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35303

Cindy wrote:

> That said, we do need someone to devise a theory for why Sirius 
> hates Snape so much. This is more than just the hatred Sirius has 
> at the end of GoF. For some reason, Sirius hated Snape enough to 
> play the Prank, but I haven't seen a LOLLIPOPS, George, 
> CUPIDSBLUDGER, Prince, Mercy, Mercy II type of explanation that I 
> find compelling. Any takers?

<raises hand tentatively>

Might I suggest my own variant on C.U.P.I.D.S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R.?

I suggest that Florence *was* Sirius' girlfriend.  Sirius was the one
Bertha Jorkins saw kissing behind the greenhouses, and he was indeed 
the one who hexed her for her nosy ways.  The canon to back this up
is the hostility in Sirius' tone whenever he speaks of Bertha to 
Harry:

"Listen, I knew Bertha Jorkins . . . She was at Hogwarts when I was,
a few years above your dad and me. And she was an idiot. Very nosy, 
but no brains, none at all. It's not a good combination."

"Maybe she's changed since I knew her, but the Bertha I knew wasn't 
forgetful at all -- quite the reverse. She was a bit dim, but she had 
an excellent memory for gossip. It used to get her into a lot of 
trouble; she never knew when to keep her mouth shut." 

Now why would an all-around good guy like Sirius have been so upset by
being teased about kissing a *girl*, of all things, that he would not 
only cast a hex on poor Bertha Jorkins but also still be holding a 
grudge about it nearly twenty years later?

Well, because Florence, as amiable and Dead Sexy as she might have 
been, was also a member of House Slytherin.  Their love -- what with 
Voldemort on the rise and all -- was a Forbidden Love, and they had 
been keeping their relationship a secret from all of their friends, 
which is why they were hiding out behind the greenhouses in the first 
place.

<Elkins pauses here, to allow the more sentimental romantics to break 
out their hankies>

Once Bertha Jorkins spilled the beans, though, all hell broke loose.  
The revelation that Sirius and Florence had been conducting a 
clandestine relationship sat well with neither Florence's Slytherin 
companions (half of whom had the hots for her themselves) nor with 
Sirius' friends.  James and Remus were hurt that he hadn't trusted 
them with his secret; little Peter kept squealing over and over 
again "A *Slytherin* girl?  Sirius, how *could* you?"; and Lily got 
decidedly thin-lipped over the matter, as she and Florence had been 
academic rivals ever since their very first day at Hogwarts -- a 
rivalry which had only been exacerbated by their shared expertise 
in the field of Charms.  

Neither Sirius' attempts to defend his unconventional relationship
("But guys, she's really, really *brave!*  I mean, she probably never
should have been sorted Slyth in the first place!") nor Florence's 
own ("Oh, *do* shut up, Lestrange.  Sirius Black is Dead Sexy.  And 
besides, if you don't like it, you know what the solution is, don't 
you?") sufficed to sway the disapproval of their respective 
peers, and so in the end, with much moaning and angst, they parted 
ways.

Now although Sirius did take for a time to sitting by the shore of 
the lake, staring broodishly off into the mid-distance while tossing 
bread crusts to the giant squid, his generally ebullient nature -- 
not to mention the emotional safety net of his friends -- soon saw 
him through this crisis, and he emerged relatively unscathed.  

Florence on the other hand...

Well, Florence brooded.  She dwelled.  She had that Slytherin 
tendency towards resentment, don't you know, and unlike Sirius, she 
didn't have a very close circle of friends to see her through.  She 
became...withdrawn.  Bitter.  Twisted.  She began to hold the 
Gryffindors (especially that nasty little Mudblood Lily Evans) solely 
responsible for the break-up; her mind turned to thoughts of bloody 
vengeance.  She also started pestering her classmate Severus "I Know 
More Hexes Than Old Flitwick Himself" Snape to teach her all of the 
nastiest curses he knew.  He, of course, was more than happy to do 
this because (a) he kind of had a thing for her himself, (b) it 
flattered his ego, and (c) he knew damned well that being seen in 
Florence's presence all the time would *really* twist the knife into 
old Sirius Black, whom he despised.

Which it did.  Sirius was absolutely *convinced* that there was 
something of a romantic nature going on between his beloved Florence 
and that slimy oily git Severus, and worse, whatever it was was 
clearly beginning to corrupt the poor girl's mind -- she had taken to 
staring over at the Gryffindor table during mealtimes with a dreamy 
smile on her face while absently pulling the wings off of flies, and 
she now smirked malevolently whenever anyone fell down and skinned 
their knee...well, it was just plain *disturbing,* was what it was.  
And in Sirius' mind, *clearly* a result of Snape's Bad Influence.

So this was the real motivation underlying the viciousness of 
Sirius prank.  While he might have told himself that "he just wasn't 
thinking," deep down inside he wanted Snape dead.  Dead, dead, dead, 
as Cindy would put it.  To save his *girl*, you see.  To save her 
from Snape's bad influence.

'Course, it didn't work.  Florence eventually went on to marry
Lestrange, become a Big Bad Evil Death Eater, and wind up in Azkaban.

So *this* is the reason that Sirius hates Snape so much.  Because 
Snape corrupted his Lost Love and led her into Darkness.

And this is also the reason that Snape hates Sirius so much.  Because 
he thinks that Sirius' *rejection* of Florence is what...well, what 
corrupted his Unrequited Crush and led her into Darkness.

(Actually Florence was never a very nice person to begin with.  But 
neither of the two lads realized that, you see, because she was just 
so darned sexy.)

As canonical evidence for this theory, I offer the following:

(1)  Florence has a first name, but no last name.  Mrs. Lestrange has 
a last name, but no first name.  Coincidence?  Oh, I think not!

(2)  Sirius' strange omission of Mrs. Lestranges first *or* maiden
name when he lists her as a member of Snape's old gang.  He is 
thinking back to people he knew as students.  Wouldn't you think that 
he would identify Mrs. Lestrange by her maiden name, or even by her 
first and maiden name?  Surely the Lestranges were not married until
after they left Hogwarts.  And while Gryffindors *do* tend to refer 
to their rival males in Slytherin by surname only, their sense of 
chivalry generally leads them to grant female Slyths first names as 
well. (In Harry's mind, for example, Draco Malfoy is almost always 
merely "Malfoy;" Pansy Parkinson, on the other hand, is *never*
"Parkinson."  She is "Pansy Parkinson," or sometimes just "Pansy.")

It's odd, isn't it?  That Mrs. Lestrange's inclusion in the list 
should be subsumed into her husband's identity like that?  She's 
almost *glossed,* really:

"The Lestranges -- they're a married couple -- they're in Azkaban."

It almost sounds as if Sirius would rather not talk about her -- or 
even to *think* about her --  at all, doesn't it?  Consistent, 
surely, with how one might talk about ones Lost Love, when said Lost 
Love not only married somebody else, but also became a ravenously 
sadistic Dark Witch?

and finally:

(3) Dumbledore's Pensieve.  Remember that the memory from which he 
recalls Harry is the Lestranges' sentencing.  Shortly thereafter, his 
Pensieve coughs up the memory of his interview with the young Bertha 
Jorkins, right after the hexing incident.  He remembers asking her:

"But why, Bertha, . . . why did you have to follow him in the first 
place?"

The anguished tone seems rather out of keeping for a simple matter of 
a fast hex, doesn't it?  No, Dumbledore's agony there arises from his
wise suspicion that this entire Sirius Black affair is going to prove 
the last straw for the unstable young Florence, that it will be the 
catalyst which will push her right over the edge into Darkness.

Dumbledore's a smart guy that way.

And of course, his expression of weariness and sorrow right after 
witnessing that memory is two-fold.  He is actually mourning the 
sorry fates of not just one girl there, but *two*: both of Bertha 
Jorkins, whose tendency to nosiness and gossip brought her to such an 
unfortunate end, *and* of young Florence, who showed such great 
promise as a student and who might not have gone wrong at all, had 
she not been embittered at such a tender age by House rivalry and 
tragically Doomed Love.

<Elkins blinks back a few tears herself, then bats feebly at her eyes 
with a stray bloody feather>

So indeed, Contrary to Unrequited Passion Infelicitously Devouring 
Severus, Black's Love of an Unkmown Damsel *did* Get the Expected 
Response -- namely, pure and mutual hatred between Sirius and 
Severus, each of whom to this very day blames the other for the 
spiritual corruption and unlucky fate of a lovely young girl who 
might otherwise have grown up to do nothing more dire than bustle 
cheerfully around her kitchen, baking chockie-chip cookies for her 
passel of beautiful children.


-- Elkins, wondering if due to the sneakily subversive nature of this 
theory, it should rightfully be called "Cupid's Snitch."




From cindysphynx at home.com  Sat Feb 16 00:50:32 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 00:50:32 -0000
Subject: Avery, Voldemort's Wand, Timeline (WAS Avery and Ambushes)
In-Reply-To: <a4k1mi+sck3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4kaco+gtch@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35304

Having pushed Avery overboard because his sniveling was dancing on my 
last good nerve, I must take one last shot at bringing someone -- 
anyone -- along on a few points:

***********

Eileen wrote (about Crouch's 1962 birthday):

> Where does the lexicon get the birthday? Is it just an assumption 
from 
> a 1981 date?
> 

I have no clue.  All I know is that Steve says it, so it is true.  :-)
I suspect it is extrapolated from something.  It probably isn't far 
off, though.

Cindy wrote:

> > So . . . Crouch was sent to prison right after the Longbottoms 
were 
> > tortured in 1981 (on the strength of Neville's Reverse Memory 
Charm 
> > testimony, mind), and he was pardoned when Fudge became Minister 
of 
> > Magic shortly thereafter.  

Eileen questioned:

>How does Avery get off if Neville with his 
> magically enhanced testimony fingers him and Crouch? 

Because after some time passed, people started questioning the 
reliability of this Reverse Memory Charm.  Also, even if people 
believed that the Reverse Memory Charm was infallible, you have to 
remember that Avery used the Imperius Defense to win his appeal.  So 
even if Memory Enhanced Baby Neville saw exactly what he claimed he 
saw, Avery might have been under the Imperius Defense.

Eileen wrote:

> And Crouch certainly has to "die" quickly to get this theory going. 
> No, too short. I like Elkins's idea better. Sorry.

I don't follow you.  Crouch gets sprung from Azkaban whenever he gets 
sprung.  I don't think it matters much for the timeline exactly when 
this happens.  Avery, however, gets out quickly -- as soon as Fudge 
takes over.

What am I missing?


Eileen again (on whether Avery had anything to do with Voldemort's 
wand):

> We could have it.
> 
> 1. Pettigrew picks up wand.
> 2. Gives it to Voldemort.
> 
> OR
> 
> 1. Avery picks up wand 
> 2. Gives to Crouch Jr.
> 3. Confiscated by Crouch Sr., who keeps it around just in case.
> 4. Voldemort gets it back when he visits the Crouch residence.

But . . . but . . . Voldemort is a vapor, a cloud of gas, a stench on 
the back of Quirrell's turban or some such.  Voldemort can't have 
possession of his wand until the beginning of GoF.  Indeed, he 
remarks that possessing snakes wasn't his cup of tea because their 
slimy little no-hands bodies aren't great for magic, IIRC.  So Avery 
has to give it to someone who doesn't wind up in Azkaban.  

::Cindy, having had a good night's sleep and now being willing to 
tackle this issue, squares her shoulders::

The obvious choices:

Bagman
Malfoy
McNair

Of these, I'd put money on Malfoy.  Malfoy seems to like to get his 
hands on important Dark magical objects, like the diary.  So I'm 
thinking that Malfoy coached Avery on the finer points of 
establishing an Imperius Defense.  Avery told Malfoy to hang onto 
Voldemort's wand.  

But how does Voldemort's wand make it to Pettigrew?

The alternative is that Bagman has Voldemort's wand, having received 
it from Avery.  Under the "Bagman Is A Hideously Evil DE Who Assisted 
In The Plot To Restore Voldemort" theory, Bagman gave it to Pettigrew 
in the first part of GoF.  Kinda weak, frankly.

McNair?  I just can't see it.  That would really come out of nowhere.

Eileen wrote (about whether Dumbledore required the Ambush from Snape 
as a condition of taking Snape back into the fold):

> True. Sorry, Cindy. I'll have to retract my support for the ambush 
> being the loyalty proof. 
 
Ouch! 

OK, as I understand it, Elkins makes the point that Voldemort would 
happily sacrifice a few of his inner circle to establish Snape in 
Voldemort's camp.  But the best piece of canon to support the Ambush-
On-Dumbledore's-Orders idea is Dumbledore's refusal to answer Harry's 
question about why he trusts Snape.  *No way* is Dumbledore going to 
tell a student that a teacher betrayed his old school chums and got 
some of them killed.  

That's all I've got, really. ::hangs head in defeat::

Cindy -- finding it lonely in the Ambush-On-Dumbledore's-Orders camp, 
the Reverse-Memory-Charm camp, the Bagman-Is-A-DE camp, the Sirius-
Was-Having-His-Way-With-Florence camp, and the Snape-Has-A-Debt-To-
James camp, but consoling herself by eating all of the Smores 
singlehandedly




From mercia at ireland.com  Sat Feb 16 00:43:24 2002
From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 00:43:24 -0000
Subject: What Snape knew
In-Reply-To: <024901c1b670$edcb4a80$d37663d1@texas.net>
Message-ID: <a4k9vc+hn4j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35305

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda" <editor at t...> wrote:
> > So before any of you start ragging on Snape again, that he heard 
the truth
> and just chose to ignore it, look and see what it can be said with 
certainty
> that Snape really did hear. He was either not yet in the room, or 
out cold,
> for the revelations that would have allowed him to entertain any 
of what
> *we* know is the truth.

OK so us relative newbies miss the odd post or several thousand in 
33000. You did certainly deal very comprehensively with the sequence 
of events in the shrieking Shack and I am sorry if I seemed to be 
rehashing old ground. However it is very rare to come up with 
genuinely new stuff. I think in four years of studying English at 
University I can only pride myself on one genuinely original theory 
about a particular poet. At least I never saw it expounded anywhere 
else though it earned me some alpha marks when I included it in a 
dissertation. I'm not saying our thoughts and opinions are not our 
own. Just that it's almost inevitable that someone else has also got 
there first. And since this group has been going for some years, 
clearly those of us new to it will pick up old threads again not 
realising they have already been well unravelled. 

Seriously I appreciate the analysis and I didn't mean to imply or 
suggest that Snape knew everything that was said. He did, I 
recognise, miss most of the important stuff. It just seemed that he 
might have heard enough to give him pause for thought, if he had 
been capable of thinking rationally at that point. And I accept that 
he was so convinced both of Sirius' guilt and Lupin's collusion that 
he wasn't really open to other perspectives. Why though did he stay 
invisible for at least 10 minutes worth of conversation? Why not 
reveal himself as soon as he was in the room or as soon as he had 
weighed up the situation? He listened in for quite a while. 

>> meglet2/Mercia





From oppen at cnsinternet.com  Sat Feb 16 02:02:20 2002
From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:02:20 -0600
Subject: Snape and McGonagal---Rivals?
Message-ID: <019101c1b68d$f8a9b500$fdc71bce@hppav>

No: HPFGUIDX 35306

It occurs to me that a lot of the "friction" we see between Professors Snape
and McGonagall could be because they represent, and specialize in, very
different approaches to magic.

Remember Professor Snape's speech in PS/SS?  He _loves_ potions, and kind of
looks down on "wand-waving" flashy magic.  And what, may I ask, is _more_
flashy, magic-wise, than Transfiguration?  Charms probably comes close, but
for something to make the spectators _ooh_ and _aah,_ turning one's enemies
into newts is awfully hard to beat.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that Professor McGonagall, in her turn, kind
of looks down her nose at Potions, seeing it as basically glorified
cooking---"okay, you throw _this_ and _that_ into the cauldron and seethe it
for a while.  Big whoop.  A house-elf could probably do _that,_ if they were
allowed to.  Now, try turning something into something else---_that_ is
magic!"

Intellectually, each one acknowledges the necessity of the "other" kind of
magic, I'm sure, but since Potions and Transfiguration require very
different approaches, specializing in one would kind of preclude a strong
interest in the other.  Kind of like how, in the more traditonal British
schools, the "classics" masters and science masters often found themselves
disagreeing about what was important.  (At least according to _Stalky and
Co._)  The classics guys had tradition (and the standard exams, still heavy
with Greek and Latin, even for places like Sandhurst) on their side, while
the science mavens could point to all the great changes and improvements
that science had brought, and sneered at the classics as "the Analects of
Confucius."

Being heads of houses that are traditional rivals would be, at most, icing
on the cake at their ages.




From Cornet83 at aol.com  Sat Feb 16 01:49:53 2002
From: Cornet83 at aol.com (mariahisabel)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 01:49:53 -0000
Subject: Avery, Voldemort's Wand, Timeline (WAS Avery and Ambushes)
In-Reply-To: <a4kaco+gtch@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4kds1+k7qt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35307

I have my own theory as to how Voldemort still has his wand ( the 
original) at the graveyard scene.  Now I am a newbie so I apologize 
it this theory has already been put forward but as you all well know 
it is easy to miss one of the thousands of messages on this site that 
may have already expressed what youre thinking. Ive spent a week just 
reading old messages and looking around. I read all the essays and 
facts and I dont think this is on there but if it is I apologize 
again.

back to the theory though...

Now Pettigrew was the Potter's secret keeper and though Im now expert 
on the Fidelius charm Im guessing that in order for Voldemort to 
reach the Potters the secret keeper had to not only tell the location 
of the protected people but accompany the searcher as well. After 
Voldie dispatches of the Potters (I wont go as far as to speculate 
how he did it, or who did it, or who died first, Im a newbie afterall)
old Peter keeps the wand, either as a way to try and show voldemort 
his loyalty later on ("but my Lord, I kept your wand faithfully while 
awaiting your return") or for sonme other reason.  Of course then 
Peter has no problem of delivering the wand to V. and V. still has 
his old wand.

Now there is no canon to back me up and this is all purely 
specualtion but what does everyone think? 





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Sat Feb 16 02:37:22 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 02:37:22 -0000
Subject: Snape and McGonagal---Rivals?
In-Reply-To: <019101c1b68d$f8a9b500$fdc71bce@hppav>
Message-ID: <a4kgl2+fs2a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35308

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" <oppen at c...> wrote:
> It occurs to me that a lot of the "friction" we see between 
Professors Snape
> and McGonagall could be because they represent, and specialize in, 
very
> different approaches to magic.
> 

I think you have a good point there.  I also get the feeling, based 
on Snape's speech in PS/SS, that he feels that the whole field of 
potions is underappreciated by the magical world at large.  It's not 
glamorous, it requires a lot of time, work, and some rather gross 
ingredients, the end result is a cauldronful of liquid instead of a 
flashy display -- people just don't understand the brilliance it 
takes, dammit!

It's ironic, really.  Snape seems to be a man who really wants to be 
respected.  Yet he works in a disrespected field, heads a 
disrespected House, and, of course, spying is one of the most 
disrespected things one can do in a war.  The guy is doomed to a 
life of frustration.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From pbnesbit at msn.com  Sat Feb 16 02:48:44 2002
From: pbnesbit at msn.com (harpdreamer)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 02:48:44 -0000
Subject: How do we know Crouch, jr's age? (Was: Re: Avery, Voldemort's Wand, Timeline 
In-Reply-To: <a4kaco+gtch@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4khac+qlj0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35309

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> > 
> Eileen wrote (about Crouch's 1962 birthday):
> 
> > Where does the lexicon get the birthday? Is it just an assumption 
> from 
> > a 1981 date?
> > 
> 
> I have no clue.  All I know is that Steve says it, so it is 
true.  :-)
> I suspect it is extrapolated from something.  It probably isn't far 
> off, though.
> 
> 

Sirius says in GoF that Crouch jr was 19 when he was taken to Azkaban 
in 1981.  19 from 1981 is 1962.  


Peace & Plenty, 

Parker 




From devin.smither at yale.edu  Sat Feb 16 02:57:57 2002
From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 02:57:57 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_SHIP:___Florence,_Bertha_and_C.U.P.I.D.=92S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R.?=
In-Reply-To: <a4k698+sej1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4khrl+ces8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35310

*attempts to get breath back after the "Florence Lestrange" theory 
takes it away*

My.....my God...it's just so....RIGHT!

I must honestly hand it to you, Elkins.  I thought you had played 
your trump with Avery the Fourth Man (a theory I'm a little more than 
lukewarm on, but nowhere near boiling), but you have SO bested 
yourself.  This is magnificent!  I was ready to believe you with no 
canon at all, and then...then...you PRESENTED SOME!  It somehow FELT 
absolutely chord-strikingly perfect, and then you went and added 
proof.  If this turns out to not be true, I'll eat my paperback 
British copy of GoF (and promptly buy another copy).  Honestly, how 
can you do this to me?  Don't you see that you have only increased my 
nagging impatience for OotP, etc., something I thought was impossible 
until I read this?  You may not know impatience, but Impatience 
himself has been at my side since I closed GoF for the first time.  
Do you see what you've done?  DO YOU?

This mayn't be proper to post since it's only an agreement, but I 
wanted to let the world know that this ship/theory has one die-hard 
supporter (did your husband at least go for this one, Elkins?).  I am 
SO unworthy to be here.  This is outside my realm of thought.  Don't 
get me wrong, I'm as obsessive as the next fan, but I can't ever 
organize my thoughts to come up with something this astounding.  I 
sure do love reading it, though.  Fantastic!

Devin, he-who-stands-(or-sits-rather)-amazed




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 16 03:09:33 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 03:09:33 -0000
Subject: Wands, Meanings and Where it All Could Lead...
In-Reply-To: <a4jj3h+bnbl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4kihd+109lv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35312

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "abigailnus" <abigailnus at y...> wrote:
> Voldemort, representing and embodying evil, is all about the defeat 
of death.  By his 
> own admission, his final goal in the bad old days was to achieve 
immortality, and he worked very hard to protect 
> himself against death so that, having been hit by the Avada Kedavra 
curse, he still managed to survive in some basic, 
> bodyless form.


> Nicolas Flamel, a friend of Dumbldore's and hence a good guy, 
destroys the Philosopher's Stone which Voldemort 
> covets.  

He thus accepts his own death (unlike Voldemort).

>This allows Dumbledore to state, so early in the series and with 
such importance, that "death is but 
> the next great adventure."  Voldemort is evil not because he causes 
>death but because he refuese to accept it - IN TRYING TO BECOME 
>IMMORTAL, HE BECOMES INHUMAN.


Very interesting ideas. It also scares me a bit.  Why?  Because, 
unlike some of you, I've never been afraid that Harry would die in 
Book 7.  Afraid for almost everyone around him, yes, but afraid for 
Harry, no.  But I read your post and thought, "If refusing to accept 
one's own death is the defining characteristic of the ultimate evil 
character, than accepting one's own death would be the logical last 
heroic act of our hero."  

I can't foresee our final Harry/Voldemort showdown merely being a 
simple matter of who can AK the other faster or stronger; there will 
have to be final showdown that truly "means" something.  Perhaps in 
order to rid the world of LV once and for all, Harry will have to 
willingly die too?  And out of the ashes this great pyric (sp.) 
victory will be born a better and safer world for those Harry loves?






From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sat Feb 16 03:26:17 2002
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 16 Feb 2002 03:26:17 -0000
Subject: New file uploaded to HPforGrownups 
Message-ID: <1013829977.19214.74245.w82@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35313


Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the HPforGrownups 
group.

  File        : /HPService.doc 
  Uploaded by : lupinesque <aiz24 at hotmail.com> 
  Description : Church service on HP 

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/HPService.doc 

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

lupinesque <aiz24 at hotmail.com>
 







From brewpub44 at earthlink.net  Sat Feb 16 03:31:43 2002
From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 03:31:43 -0000
Subject: Would Edgy Lupin Crack?  (WAS Why Suspect Lupin? )
In-Reply-To: <a4bsq9+pdmq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4kjqv+rak5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35314

In response to lots of good dialog on Lupin cracking, I have to say 
no.

He is already in the pit of hell, being a Lycanthrope. What could 
possibly make him crack? To those who have suffered tremendously, and 
survived, it is doubtful more imposed suffering could do the trick.

Persuasion through curing his affliction is possible, yes, but 
cracking? I just don't buy it.

A Barkeep in Diagon Alley




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 16 03:32:47 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 03:32:47 -0000
Subject: An old-fashioned discussion
In-Reply-To: <a4imhb+e9ag@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4kjsv+jif0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35315

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "booleanfox" <j.balfour at l...> wrote:
> I would be interested to know what everybody's favourite non-
> wizarding character is, and why?

Well, I'm not going to go so far as to call this my FAVORITE non-
wizarding character, but she definitely deserves a mention on this 
list-- Moaning Myrtle.  Why? As Harry sits in a tub full of bubbles, 
theorizing about the meaning of the golden egg clue, Myrtle says, 

"Well that's what Diggory thought," she said.  "He lay there talking 
to himself for ages about it.  Ages and ages..nearly all the bubbles 
had gone..."

She's practically salivating as she remembers Cedric, the hottie, 
lying in that tub with the bubbles slowly disappearing.  That line 
just kills me!





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Sat Feb 16 03:50:09 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 03:50:09 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_SHIP:___Florence,_Bertha_and_C.U.P.I.D.=92S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R.?=
In-Reply-To: <a4k698+sej1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4kkth+8g7v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35316

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" <theennead at a...> wrote:
> Might I suggest my own variant on C.U.P.I.D.S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R.?

<snip theory about Florence being Mrs. LeStrange>

Good grief.  Not only has this theory totally succeeded in 
enthralling me, but it inspired me to my very first acronym.

Florence, Loved and Abandoned by Black, Becomes EnRaged, Goes After 
Severus, Turns Evil Deatheater = F.L.A.B.B.E.R.G.A.S.T.E.D.

You're truly amazing.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From marybear82 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 16 03:59:52 2002
From: marybear82 at yahoo.com (Mary Shearer)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:59:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wands, Meanings and Where it All Could Lead...
In-Reply-To: <a4kihd+109lv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020216035952.46167.qmail@web14003.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35317


--- jklb66 <jklb66 at yahoo.com> wrote:
 I've never been afraid that
> Harry would die in 
> Book 7.  Afraid for almost everyone around him, yes,
> but afraid for 
> Harry, no.  But I read your post and thought, "If
> refusing to accept 
> one's own death is the defining characteristic of
> the ultimate evil 
> character, than accepting one's own death would be
> the logical last 
> heroic act of our hero."  
> 
> I can't foresee our final Harry/Voldemort showdown
> merely being a 
> simple matter of who can AK the other faster or
> stronger; there will 
> have to be final showdown that truly "means"
> something.  Perhaps in 
> order to rid the world of LV once and for all, Harry
> will have to 
> willingly die too?  And out of the ashes this great
> pyric (sp.) 
> victory will be born a better and safer world for
> those Harry loves?
> 
I've wondered, too, if this is where the story is
headed.  My speculation is mostly based on that
intriguing "gleam" of Dumbledore's, followed
immediately by his looking older and more tired than
Harry has ever seen him when he (Dumbledore) is told
of the new connection between Harry and Voldemort. I
know that there has been plenty of speculation on this
list about the use of Harry's blood in restoring
Voldemort to his body...that perhaps Voldemort cannot
kill Harry without killing himself as well. Should
this be the case, Harry may very well have to make a
decision to sacrifice himself for the greater good.

If he does, I think that JKR would handle it with
enough grace to keep from traumetizing her readers -
perhaps a joyful reunion with his parents - that is a
"tragic" ending I could probably live with.  If we
have to say good-bye to our beloved Harry, I will
stubbornly hold out for a "happily ever after" of some
sort!  

-Mary, who really doesn't want Harry to die at the
end, but fearfully keeps looking for foreshadowing to
that effect anyway.    


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com



From cindysphynx at home.com  Sat Feb 16 05:59:28 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 05:59:28 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_SHIP:___Florence,_Bertha_and_C.U.P.I.D.=92S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R.?=
In-Reply-To: <a4k698+sej1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4ksg0+qhkf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35318

I finally abandoned my booth on the dock to help Charis Julia control 
C.U.P.I.D'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R.  Now, I find myself bobbing in the waves 
whilst clinging to a leaky inner-tube, becoming rather lightheaded as 
I struggle to keep a bit of air in it, watching slack-jawed as Elkins 
zips by in a souped-up jet ski.  

Yes, Devin and Marina are right.  We are truly in the presence of 
greatness.  But then again, we don't want Elkins to get the idea that 
we are easy.  No, we must challenge her variant of 
C.U.P.I.D.S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R, if only to preserve our dignity, our 
independence, our sense of self.  

Although I know I will fail in my mission, I offer up the following 
challenge to the notion that Bertha caught Sirius kissing his own 
girlfriend, and to the notion that a Romeo & Juliet star-crossed 
lovers kind of thing was going on and caused Sirius and Snape to 
become mortal enemies.

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

Elkins wrote:

> I suggest that Florence *was* Sirius' girlfriend.  Sirius was the 
one
> Bertha Jorkins saw kissing behind the greenhouses, and he was 
indeed 
> the one who hexed her for her nosy ways.  

<snip canon showing Sirius doesn't care for Bertha>

> Now why would an all-around good guy like Sirius have been so upset 
by
> being teased about kissing a *girl*, of all things, that he would 
not 
> only cast a hex on poor Bertha Jorkins but also still be holding a 
> grudge about it nearly twenty years later?

I'm having trouble with the idea that Sirius would be so upset by 
being caught kissing his own girlfriend, Dead Sexy Florence of 
Slytherin, that he would hex someone, carry a grudge for decades, and 
hate Snape even after he and Florence drifted apart.

Now, you have to keep in mind that my main difficulty with Elkins' 
theory is the same problem I keep running into with Tabouli's 
LOLLIPOPS theory.  I have trouble with the idea that a high-school 
crush can motivate otherwise balanced people to behave in bizarre, 
hateful ways years later and can mold whether they become Good or 
Bad.  No, I think we need something Really Big to explain the 
Sirius/Snape/Florence/Bertha grudge match.

What we need here is a more fiery catalyst, preferably something 
having to do with Snape.  Something that would really tick Sirius 
off. Stick in his gut.  Something consistent with Snape's character 
as being a nosy slimy git.

OK.  Yes, Sirius is slurping up Florence behind the greenhouse, and 
yes, Nosy Bertha catches them.  Why does Sirius care?  Because Sirius 
isn't *supposed* to be slurping up Florence.  Not because she is a 
Slytherin (although she is a Slytherin).  Yes, there are house 
divisions.  But there's no *law* against dating someone from a 
different house, and no reason to risk expulsion by hexing someone to 
keep the relationship a secret. 

No, the reason Sirius shouldn't be putting the moves on Florence and 
the reason they are hiding is because Sirius already *has* a 
girlfriend.  A beautiful redhead.  Who is very good at charms.  By 
the name of Lily Potter.  

Sirius, bless his heart, is Dead Sexy but not yet, um, mature enough 
to be faithful to one girl.  Oh sure, he talks a good game.  "You're 
the only one, Lily."  "I don't think heavily lidded eyes are 
attractive, Lily."  "No, that dress doesn't make you look fat, 
Lily."  But . . . when the chance to snuggle with Dead Sexy Florence 
presents itself, Sirius takes it.  Sirius is impulsive that way.  

But there's more.  Florence isn't supposed to be putting a lip lock 
on Sirius either, because Florence is Snape's girlfriend.  (Oh, stop 
your heckling over there.  All of these Snape backstories require 
that we believe Snape is not totally repulsive and that a girl might 
have some twisted reason for wanting to be with him.  So work with me 
here.)

So we have more than a romantic triangle.  We have a romantic 
trapezoid.  Sirius and Lily are an item; Snape and Florence are an 
item.  And Bertha?  She's just nosy and stupid.

Sirius hexes Bertha, but Bertha runs straight to Snape after she 
stops by Dumbledore's office to reverse the hex.  Snape is *furious* 
at Florence and at Sirius.  So does Snape go down to his dungeon and 
start putting pictures of Florence all over the walls?  Heck no.  
Snape does the one thing he can do to get revenge on Sirius -- he 
goes straight to Lily and tells her that Sirius is an unfaithful dog, 
so to speak.

Lily is floored.  Here she was, thinking that Sirius was sincere, 
that she was dating the best guy in school, only to find that he 
threw her over for . . . for . . . a Slytherin!  Being a strong 
woman, Lily knows she can do better than tolerate this sort of 
infidelity.  She gives Sirius his walking papers.  Now Sirius (being 
the sort of man who desperately wants what he can't have) hates Snape 
*and* Bertha.  Yes, Sirius should blame himself and take 
responsibility for what he did wrong, but, er, introspection was 
never Sirius' strong suit.  

Time passes, and Lily starts to realize that during all of the time 
she was hanging around with Sirius and James, she had really 
appreciated James more than Sirius.  James is no looker, but she gets 
used to his unkempt hair and knobbly knees and pronounces James 
adorable.  She and James get together and become an item.  This is 
painful for Sirius, but he decides to suck it up.  Why be mad at Lily 
and his best friend James when he can spend his time trying to feed 
Snape to a werewolf?

For Snape's part, he is, once again, sans girlfriend.  This gives him 
plenty of time to pursue vendettas against Sirius and the Marauders, 
culminating in The Prank.  

As for Snape and Florence, Snape still secretly carries a torch for 
Florence.  But Florence is Bad, Evil and Dark.  Snape isn't the one 
teaching Florence Dark Magic; Florence doesn't need any help.  She is 
a very strong woman, much too strong to be with a strong man like 
Snape.  She wants Mr. Lestrange, a man who knows how to keep his 
mouth shut and do what he is told.  Mr. Lestrange is a SYCOPHANT (are 
hen-pecked men welcome in SYCOPHANT?).  Snape and Florence drift 
apart as Florence becomes more and more evil.  When it is time to 
leave Hogwarts, Snape has a decision to make -- whether to become a 
DE and join up with his buddies Wilkes, Rosier and Florence.  He 
chooses this group because he still has hope that he and Florence can 
rekindle what they once had.  Snape's hopes are dashed when Florence 
informs Mr. Lestrange that they'll be getting married when she 
decides they are darn good and ready. 

Now, the canon:

Well, look here!  Elkins has conveniently provided all of the canon I 
need:
  
> (1)  Florence has a first name, but no last name.  Mrs. Lestrange 
has 
> a last name, but no first name.  Coincidence?  Oh, I think not!
 
Yup, I'm on board here.


> (2)  Sirius' strange omission of Mrs. Lestranges first *or* maiden
> name when he lists her as a member of Snape's old gang.  

Yup, I'm with you.

> (3) Dumbledore's Pensieve.  <snip>
> 
> "But why, Bertha, . . . why did you have to follow him in the first 
> place?"
> 
> The anguished tone seems rather out of keeping for a simple matter 
>of 
> a fast hex, doesn't it?  

The problem I have here is that I don't see how Dumbledore knows 
about the enmity developing between Sirius and Snape at Hogwarts at 
this point.  I believe the Greenhouse Kissing Hex happens a bit 
before the Prank.  So if Sirius and Snape are at odds over some girl, 
and the girl is becoming increasingly dark and all, I don't see why 
those facts would come to the attention of the headmaster.  

I'm hanging on to the theory that Dumbledore's anguished tone is 
simply one of frustration that Bertha has created an awkward 
situation by violating someone's privacy, requiring some hex removal, 
and creating a disciplinary problem.

Cindy (tempted to ask Elkins to sort out the Gleam in Dumbledore's 
Eye, once and for all)





From djdwjt at aol.com  Sat Feb 16 06:17:45 2002
From: djdwjt at aol.com (elfundeb)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 06:17:45 -0000
Subject: Death and Harry (WAS Re: Wands, Meanings and Where it All Could Lead...
In-Reply-To: <a4kihd+109lv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4kti9+10352@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35319

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jklb66" <jklb66 at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "abigailnus" <abigailnus at y...> wrote:
> > > > Nicolas Flamel [snip] accepts his own death (unlike 
Voldemort).
> 
> >This allows Dumbledore to state, so early in the series and with 
> such importance, that "death is but 
> > the next great adventure."  Voldemort is evil not because he 
causes 
> >death but because he refuese to accept it - IN TRYING TO BECOME 
> >IMMORTAL, HE BECOMES INHUMAN.
> 
jklb66 says:
> 
> Very interesting ideas. It also scares me a bit.  Why?
> [ snip] Perhaps in 
> order to rid the world of LV once and for all, Harry will have to 
> willingly die too?  And out of the ashes this great pyric (sp.) 
> victory will be born a better and safer world for those Harry loves?

I've been assigning much better odds (note, this is not a prediction) 
than you on Harry's death for awhile, but the thoughts in this thread 
have advanced my thinking, which started long ago from this 
simplistic point: First, Harry has already lost his family.  We know 
his greatest desire (from the Mirror of Erised) is for his family, 
but nothing in life, or in Harry's final encounter with LV could 
achieve that desire.  Moreover, Harry is introverted, IMO, and relies 
on a very few close friends.  He already feels responsible for 
Cedric's death ("I told him to take the cup with me") and he hardly 
knew Cedric.  If one of the other members of the Trio were to die, or 
even if too many mentors were to die, Harry would find the loss very 
difficult to deal with, particularly if he felt responsible, and take 
this much harder than they would take Harry's death.  Besides, how 
would Harry deal with a post-LV world?  In spite of his desire to be 
a normal fun-loving teenager, Harry seems like a questor type who 
would find the mundane job world to dull, or too sad.  Ergo, Harry is 
more likely to die than his friends are.  In real life a person like 
Harry would likely be able to deal with this -- he has done an 
admirable job already -- and go on to live a long well-adjusted 
life.  But this is fiction, and therefore I consider seriously the 
Frodo Baggins model for Harry's fate, that the fulfillment of Harry's 
quest, the defeat of LV will, if not kill him outright, leave him too 
damaged for a normal life.  

But these new ideas got me thinking.  What is Harry doing with LV?  
His encounters with LV are not attempts to avenge his parents' deaths 
(look at the mercy he shows Pettigrew).   He has a broader goal -- 
someone who has done these deeds must not be allowed to rise again.  
If Harry were to defeat LV but die in the process, what purpose would 
this serve?  Certainly two of the themes in the books are personal 
choice and a willingness to sacrifice for what is right.  To put 
those themes in the context of the meaning-of-death theme, I would 
say that it is not death that is to be feared, but an empty life.  
Harry has chosen the course that is life-giving to all, even if it 
results in his death.  (LV's choice is, on the other hand, selfish in 
the extreme --  and indeed there's been some suggestion that he needs 
to feed on human flesh to survive.)  Since Harry has already made the 
difficult choices over and over, I don't believe his death would be 
necessary to make the point.  Moreover, the point has already been 
made by the example of his parents.  JKR has told us that in the 
Potterverse the happiest people do not become ghosts.  James and Lily 
are not ghosts even though they died young and tragically, because of 
what they chose to do with their lives.  Harry's death would 
reinforce the point, but it would not be necessary; the key point is 
his willingness to die for what is right.

Debbie, who finds Harry's position as Seeker on the Quidditch team 
perfect metaphor for his battle against LV. It's a team sport, but 
Harry's job is to be a solitary questor, working alone in search of 
the Snitch (or facing LV alone), whose capture should assure victory 
for his team.  He is part of the team, yet he is very much apart from 
them.




From porphyria at mindspring.com  Sat Feb 16 09:19:27 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 01:19:27 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape & the DEs 
In-Reply-To: <a4frjq+34jo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <46FE299C-22BE-11D6-898B-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35320

On Thursday, February 14, 2002, at 12:13 AM, Elkins wrote:

> Snape Snape Snape Snape Snape.

If any of you ever find a cure for this obsession in pill form, let me 
know.

Elkins and I were discussing our varying interpretations of Snape's 
character in relation to various other past and future DEs. In the end, 
of course, the interpretation that appeals to a given person is entirely 
subjective, and I can only hope that I've sort of answered her original 
question as to why a given speculation appeals, if not in general, at 
least to me.

In this post I'm tieing up a few loose interpretive ends, starting with 
some speculation as to Snape's intellectual vs. instinctual motives, 
then moving on to his relationship with Slytherin House, Draco and 
Lucius.

> A while back, Eloise wrote, on one of the many George threads:
>
> > Of course, I also happen to believe he comes from a family of dark
> > wizards, explaining all those curses he knew, and that though he's
> > intellectually a *good* guy, many of his instincts lead him toward
> > the dark side leading to a lot of tension.
>
> And I think that that tension, that contrast between Snape's
> instincts and his intellect, has always been central to how I've read
> the character.? I do not, for example, tend to see Snape as a person
> struggling with conflicting impulses, precisely.? Rather, I tend to
> see him as someone whose *impulses* all lead him in one unerring
> direction -- but in a direction that he has chosen to reject on
> abstract and purely philosophical grounds.?

See I tend to see intellect as the efflorescence of instinct: simply 
put, people actually do tend to use their intellect to justify their 
impulses. And there is some evidence that Snape has protective instincts 
interspersed with his vicious ones. Not sentimental instincts, but still 
protective ones. In CoS he seems to have a split-second moment of real 
anguish when McGonagall announces that yet another student has fallen 
victim to the basilisk, and all his heavy-handed policing of Harry (most 
notably in PoA but also SS/PS) is still in the service of protecting 
him. I don't think he would get quite so upset by what he sees as 
Harry's propensity towards recklessness if he weren't emotionally 
involved in protecting the kid's life. At least that's my reading.

> The suggestion that Snape left the DEs because when it came right
> down to it, he lacked a taste for torture or murder, for example, has
> always left me a bit cold because in my reading of Snape, of *course*
> he has a taste for it.? A taste for it is *exactly* what he's got.?
> His taste for it...well, that's sort of his problem, isn't it?

Here I would have to side with Marina who phrased it so perfectly: "A 
predilection for reducing people to quivering globs of jelly through 
dark threats, deadly insults and viciously clever mind games is not the 
same as a predilection for reducing people to quivering globs of jelly 
through pulling their intestines out through their left nostril."

Snape definitely has a taste for psychological torture and he indulges 
himself in this whenever he has the chance. But I'm not convinced that 
he doesn't make a qualitative distinction between mental violence and 
physical violence. He's almost never the latter (except in one duel 
which was at the other guy's invitation), and I can't help but think if 
JKR had intended the reader to see him as having a propensity for 
physical violence she would have found a way to depict that by now. I 
mean, when Snape finally encounters his nemesis passed out at his feet, 
why doesn't he take the opportunity to give 'ol Sirius a kick in the 
head before he turns him in? Snape is surprisingly restrained, even 
respectful, when he doesn't think he has an audience.

Which granted, doesn't mean that he doesn't have violent impulses, and 
it certainly doesn't mean he's squeamish, but if he does have a taste 
for it he seems to have sublimated it quite effectively into it's 
psychological equivalent.

Is Snape portrayed as sympathetic by the text?

> > (yes, I really feel he's written as sympathetic).
>
> Well, of course he is!? Part of it, admittedly, *is* that Clever
> Villain/Sympathy For the Devil appeal.? You know, there's a Type
> here: the snarling drama queen in the black cape who gets all of the
> really funny cruel dry lines.? Everyone *always* likes that guy, and
> Snape shares a lot of his qualities.? And as a special bonus, he's
> not even really a villain, you don't have to feel the slightest bit
> guilty for liking him so much.

See, in your post that I was replying to you stated that JKR "seems, 
overall, to like the character far less than many of her readers do" and 
here I feel like you're chiding me for stating the obvious. :-) Granted, 
maybe the Snape-hysteria of legions of female fans has taken JKR by 
surprise (erm, *maybe*), but I still feel that she wants to plant little 
seeds of sympathy in the reader's head *beyond* the obvious 'Snidely 
Whiplash is fun' type of sympathy. I mean real sympathy, the sympathy 
you'd feel for a guy who tries in his own weird way to do the *right* 
thing and nearly always winds up being construed as the bad guy on 
account of it. The particular scene that I find wrenching is the 
staircase encounter in GoF where, as we come to find, Snape is being 
quite viciously tormented by someone who really is a bad guy who is 
plunging for the one raw nerve he knows Snape has. Snape's breakdown at 
the end of PoA is quite similar in that he *thought* he was bringing a 
psycho-killer to justice, and somehow that whole situation just didn't 
work out for him. You mention this scene yourself...

> I mean, really.? What sort of heartless monster *wouldn't* sympathize
> with Snape at the end of PoA, when he disintegrates utterly into his
> raving "Curses, Foiled Again, and Damn You, You Meddling Kids"
> hysteria?? You'd just have to be made of *stone,* wouldn't you?

...but I'm afraid I'm not quite sure if you're being facetious here or 
not. :-) I'm arguing that one actually *can* read this scene with a 
sympathetic eye to Snape without construing it as an iteration of a 
Scooby Doo episode. Well, maybe it's just me.

Regarding Snape's loyalty to muggle House, I wrote:

> > It just seems to me that his loyalty to Dumbledore probably
> > outweighs his loyalty to his house, and this is significant when
> > the two are at odds.
>
> Loyalty to Dumbledore in no way precludes loyalty to House Slytherin.
> <...>
> I think we may have some very serious disagreement here, though, over 
> the issue of to what extent House Slytherin is separable from Voldemort 
> and his agenda, or for that matter, from Dark Wizardry in general.?

I need to restate my argument here because I failed to emphasize the 
precise point of disloyalty that I was getting at. I totally agree that 
Snape in all likelihood feels perfectly loyal to the Slytherin tradition 
of ambition, cunning, etc. and that normally he might be inclined to 
just politely ignore the pureblood part without having it affect his 
overall loyalty in the slightest. I also agree that Dumbledore also 
respects the bulk of the characteristic Slytherin traits and that this 
is reflected in his conversation with Harry about the Sorting Hat which 
you mention. Dumbledore would have to respect those traits; otherwise 
he'd never employ Snape as a spy.

But I'm also construing Slytherin House as not simply a tradition or 
institution, but as a collection of individual students who identify 
with it for their own reasons. Like Draco, for instance, who clearly 
sees his allegiance to Slytherin House as being part and parcel of 
Salazar's anti-muggle stance. So while Snape might be capable of viewing 
the pureblood part as only a detail in the whole, his current house has 
some vocal students who see it as a vital part, and their parents are 
influential and potentially dangerous. Snape has to deal with this issue 
within his group of students. And how does he do it? He seems to mislead 
them. At least that's my reading of the exchange between Snape and Draco 
on the subject of Dumbledore's suspension from Hogwarts in CoS. Draco 
seems perfectly convinced that Snape is on the same side as his family 
on the issue of anti-muggle sentiment. Snape of course never says 
anything disloyal to Dumbledore, but he lets Draco go on believing that 
he is exactly the person Draco thinks he is. Which is cunning and 
politic, by all means. But what if Snape's clever non-committal 
appearance eventually leads to a crisis of loyalty?

Here's what I'm getting at when I say that loyalty to Dumbledore and to 
the house can potentially be at odds: consider the following 
hypothetical example. Let's say Draco, who really can't keep a secret, 
one day gushes to Snape some evil anti-muggle plot that his father and 
Messrs. Crabbe and Goyle are hatching. Maybe they're planning on 
firebombing the Granger home over the holidays, thus ridding wizardry of 
one more mudblood and the muggles that spawned her. Or whatever. Lets 
just say they're plotting something bad. The point here is that Draco 
would imagine Snape would approve of this, or at the very least know not 
to leak it to Dumbledore. But isn't that exactly what Snape would do? 
Isn't that sort of his job as far as Dumbledore is concerned? Which to 
me would constitute a breach of loyalty to his house, inasmuch as his 
house consists of a group of students who trust him to be on their side, 
who expect his support, and who have no idea that his allegiance to 
Dumbledore goes as deep as it does.

Does this make sense? I'm saying that under normal circumstances Snape's 
loyalty would not be an issue at all, but these are far from normal 
circumstances and he'll have to make some kind of ethical decision 
somewhere on down the line regarding his students. And I don't think his 
choice will work to their advantage. This interpretation of mine ties in 
directly with what I think of his attitude towards Draco in particular; 
however much he 'likes' Draco, this liking is rendered perverse by the 
extenuating circumstances. More on that in a few paragraphs...

Regarding Draco:

 > As for Draco, I do think that Snape genuinely likes him -- or at the
 > very least strongly identifies with him.

I replied:

 > > Given that Draco is a whiny, privileged kid, I think Snape's habit
 > > of letting him get away with everything is really a little fishy.

 > It's very difficult for us to have any idea what Snape lets Draco get
 > away with, really.

Well, just the part about how he can hex a student in front of numerous 
witnesses and not get punished. I think this is 'letting him get away 
with' a lot already.

 > Has he cracked down
 > on Draco's bullying within House Slytherin (assuming, that is, that
 > Draco does bully the younger Slyth kids, which I'm sure that he does,
 > if he's allowed to get away with it)? Is he as unjust in his
 > administration of discipline on his own students when House
 > Gryffindor *isn't* involved? There's just no way to know. That
 > issue's a black box.

Hey, I thought you were the one arguing that there was a lot of in-group 
loyalty among the Slytherin? ;-) I actually don't see Draco picking on 
the Slytherin first years when he has Gryffindors to pick on instead. I 
can't imagine Snape 'disciplining' Draco beyond offering him some advice 
as to the shrewdest way to handle a given situation. I don't think Draco 
would smirk at him as often as he does if Snape were hard on him, even 
in private.

On Draco's malingering:

 > Draco's malingering was to the benefit of the House in their efforts
 > to win the Quiddich cup, and I suspect that Snape approved
 > wholeheartedly of it. And while Draco does try to coast on his
 > family name whenever he thinks he can get away with it, we've never
 > seen evidence that he slacks off in Snape's Potions class.

 > I quite agree with you that Snape would not take kindly to anyone
 > slacking off in his Potions class.

	"Sir," Malfoy called, "sir, I'll need help cutting up these daisy 
roots, because of my arm --"

	"Weasley, cut up Malfoy's roots for him," said Snape without 
looking up.

Here's the deal. The Buckbeak-scratching incident took place on the 
first day of Hagrid's class. This was September 2nd. "Malfoy didn't 
reappear in classes until late on Thursday morning..." which was when he 
arrived in Potions, so lets say that was within a week. The Quidditch 
match which the Slytherin swapped out of was scheduled a few days after 
the Halloween feast, so early November. Snape would have to have been 
thinking 'hmmm, on the off chance that it happens to be raining *around 
eight weeks from now* it would be a good idea for Draco to use that arm 
of his as an excuse to swap the match order, because the Slytherin don't 
perform well in the rain.' Yes, it's possible, but I still feel that 
Snape lets Draco get away with his performance in class because it's 
*Draco* and Snape isn't going to contradict him whether he'd secretly 
like to or not.?

 > > Snape appears to be giving Hermione better marks. If he really
 > > liked Draco as much as he seems to, why wouldn't he find some slimy
 > > reason to deduct points from Hermione's exam and add a few special
 > > bonus points to Draco's?

 > Snape does favor the Slyths, but I mean, *really,* Porphyria! There
 > are *limits!*

Um, yes thanks. This is exactly my point. He doesn't do it when it 
really counts.

 > > Or better yet, if he really really cares about Draco, why aren't
 > > there signs that he's mentoring him in some really useful way? Does
 > > he even teach him better techniques for chopping ginger root?

 > Well, for starters, I think that the man that you're tilting at here
 > gets more bursting with straw with each new paragraph. ;-)

Ahem. That was a series of rhetorical questions -- I'm not being daft as 
you suggest, I'm making a point, which is that whatever affection Snape 
might have for Draco is not anything terribly practical. Which is 
important because not only is it not useful for Draco, it's more 
dangerous than helpful, because it's misleading. Now if, as some people 
have suggested, Snape really has Draco's best interests at heart and 
intends to lead him out of the Dark Side when the time is right, the I 
think we'd see something more substantial coming from Snape than mere 
favoritism, something more like a mentoring. Rather, I think Draco is 
being snowed by Snape, and this is leading him into a false sense of 
security. Which is potentially really bad for Draco, and one would 
imagine Snape realizes this.

So "Snape genuinely likes him -- or at the very least strongly 
identifies with him" does not equal Snape "really liked Draco as much as 
he seems to" or "really really cares about Draco." This distinction is 
clearer to you than it is to me. No really, I think I understand that 
you were saying that Snape appreciates Draco's sense of humor, disgust 
at Harry, etc., but perhaps not much more than that, but I think 
whatever affection he genuinely feels is eclipsed by the complex set of 
loyalties and deceptions he's caught up in. It's at best a complicated 
and at worst a deceitful sort of liking going on here.

 > But really, if Snape *had* been, say, teaching Draco better techniques
 > for chopping ginger root, then what sort of signs would you really
 > expect to see of that in the text?

I was thinking of whatever Harry might see in Potions class, which is 
why I used this example.
?
 > And Snape's prompting of Draco's Serpensortia spell in the duelling
 > club scene of CoS can be read as evidence that he *has* given the boy
 > a bit of tutoring on the side -- although in curses, rather than in
 > Potions.

Is serpensortia a curse? I thought it was a conjuring of some sort. I 
agree that it's unlikely Draco could have busted this one out on his own 
without coaching. I figured either, a) Slytherin love practicing this 
one in the common room because it's their mascot animal or b) Snape did 
indeed teach it to him -- to smoke out Harry's parseltongue abilities. 
Cause really, it's all about Harry. ;-)

On to something we agree on; Snape's history with Lucius, etc.:

 > > So that set me to wondering where [the poisons under Malfoy's 
drawing room floor] originally came from. Hmmm.
 > > Do we know anyone who was a DE back in the day who might have had a
 > > talent for brewing particularly nasty, illegal, specialized-
 > > function poisons?

 > I like it. So do you think that "poison" might be a kind of Dark
 > Wizard euphemism for forbidden potions?

Yeah, maybe it's etymological slippage on my part, but I was considering 
poisons to be a subset of potions; basically potions that are toxic.

 > It does seem to me that the
 > nastiest and most illegal of specialized-potions would likely be ones
 > that...well, that wouldn't necessarily be designed to *kill.* Or at
 > least not *only* to kill.

 From Cos:
"Hermione opened Moste Potente Potions carefully, and the three
of them bent over the damp-spotted pages. It was clear from a glance
why it belonged in the Restricted Section. Some of the potions had
effects almost too gruesome to think about, and there were some
very unpleasant illustrations, which included a man who seemed to
have been turned inside out and a witch sprouting several extra
pairs of arms out of her head."

I like the insidey-outsidey one!

 > Say, do you think it make me a little...bent that I want to know more
 > about Dark magic? We've had the Unforgivables, but they're really
 > pretty run-of-the-mill Bad Things To Do To People, aren't they? I
 > mean, what do Seriously Bad Wizards *do?* Magically, I mean. What
 > constitutes the "Dark Arts?"

Oh, I can't tell you how much it galls me that JKR has not provided us 
with an adequate theory of the Dark Arts! I mean, what is it? Are there 
only certain spells that qualify, or does it have more to do with the 
intention of the caster? And all the DADA classes apart from "Moody's" 
seem to concern themselves with dark creatures. Sure, defending against 
grindylows is practical knowledge, but there mere condition of *being* a 
grindylow does not constitute proficiency in a Dark Art. What exactly do 
these Dark Artists do? I realize that one can glean a few ideas from 
outside sources (other fantasy novels, Wiccan philosophy), but that 
doesn't cut it for me; I want a Potter-specific theory.

 > I've always liked to imagine that Divination is *not,* in fact, an
 > impractical field of magic at all, but that the only really reliable
 > forms of Divination qualify as Dark Arts -- which is the reason that
 > Dumbledore gets stuck with poor Trelawney and her once-a-decade
 > prophecies. I like to think that at Durmstrang, say, Divination is a
 > highly challenging and intellectual -- and *effective!* -- part of
 > the curriculum.

So, instead of interpreting sheep entrails, you interpret people 
entrails? Instead of tea leaves, hemlock leaves? Oh I know, maybe it's 
like the Oracle of Delphi: you get really stoned on some powerful 
hallucinogen and just spout forth. :-)

I actually am curious to know what you mean here. Are you suggesting 
that real, effective divination would be unethical, and thus dark? Or 
something about the practice of it, like necromancy, would be the 
darkening factor?

 > Why do I like to imagine this? I'm not sure. Maybe just because
 > it would make Hermione so very *annoyed* if she knew. ;-)

She sure needs some angst in her life. Everyone else has some.

Well, there it is. And please sign me up for the Fourth Man Theory, I'll 
take the smorgasbord of options: Imperius, SHIP and remorse, with the 
full complement of perverse possibilities. I'd also like to apply for 
membership to Cupid's Snitch -- that's the most forehead-smackingly 
convincing theory I've heard in nearly two years of speculation. I 
second all the gushy posts you're getting.

~~Porphyria


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




From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 16 08:24:19 2002
From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 00:24:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Could the Stone have been Not Destroyed?
Message-ID: <20020216082419.49267.qmail@web21106.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35321

I was actually musing on a book 5 prediction that
Dumbledore could be evil. Enough of the gleam of
triumph in the eye evidence...

Remember that it was from Dumbledore that we knew that
the Philosopher's Stone was destroyed, not from the
narrator. We could never really tell if he never tells
a lie. What if he just kept the stone for himself? The
Quirrell incident is a perfect cover up and alibi for
his 'having destroyed the stone'. Well, we never
really knew if it was destroyed or not, but what if it
really wasn't? Could Dumbledore possible (not
necessarily likely) be evil? Besides the gleam in the
eye has somebody spotted something else against his
un-evilness?

-Ron Yu

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com



From hermione_heidi at hotmail.com  Sat Feb 16 03:41:04 2002
From: hermione_heidi at hotmail.com (Heidi Henshaw)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 23:41:04 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] An old-fashioned discussion
Message-ID: <F157k8kkB1o6PthCki900013d12@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35322

Jules wrote:
I would be interested to know what everybody's favourite non-
wizarding character is, and why?


My favorite non-wizarding character would probably be Hagrid. You can argue 
him both ways, he went to Hogwarts but was expelled before he was fully 
trained. But if not I would have to say Petuina because there has to be a 
reason that she acts the way she does.  Jealously can be a powerfull 
emotion.  That and she has shaped Harry into the person that he is.

Heidi H



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





From dumbledore94 at hotmail.com  Sat Feb 16 01:35:22 2002
From: dumbledore94 at hotmail.com (andrea mcpherson talia chambers)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:35:22 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Prediction List for SHIPPING and others.
Message-ID: <F123NVKDnLICTxKuZa900009a94@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35323




>--- lucky_kari <lucky_kari at yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > 1. Ron and Hermione relationship emerges.
> > 2. Harry and Ginny relationship emerges.
> > 3. Harry and Cho relationship emerges.
> > 4. Hermione and Viktor Krum relationship emerges.
> > 5. Ginny and Neville relationship emerges.
> > 6. Evidence of LOLLIPOPS surfaces.
> > 7. Evidence of FLIRTIAC surfaces.
> > 8. Percy and Penny relationship further explored.
> > 9. Evidence of CUPIDSBLUDGER surfaces.
> > 10. Harry and/or Ron develops crush on female DADA
> > teacher.
> > 11. FITD
> > 12. Fleur catches someone's heart.

<snip>

   Nice list. I've got an alternative to #10 for Snapester. ( I couldn't 
think of any better nickname at the moment.) Severus Snape    (I gotta look 
up that first name-to sever?) falls in love the female (well, doesn't have 
to be, female that is) DADA teacher. We have speculations about his past 
love life but I'd like not only to see evidence of the said surface but also 
see him in action.;) Maybe while trying to get her job there well be some 
heated " I hate you because I love you!" moments where Harry and/not Ron are 
hidden under a table. We ARE -sadly, missing many of the adult issues- 
limited to Harry's point of view. Maybe this won't show up in #5 but I'd 
like to see it some time. I wonder how this could fit in with 
L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S , C.U.P.I.D.'S. B.L.U.D.G.E.R. and the other one just 
posted today that doesn't have an acronym yet.( I happen to love that 
theory, by the way.

Oh and for #12 maybe Fleur also comes to teach at Hogwarts. She mentioned 
improving her Engllish and coming to work in the U.K or that area. OTOH, 
that was alredy mentioned here. Oh well, let me remind you then.


    Andrea ( whose fever and cold gone[ YAAAA!!] since she last posted, but 
her nose is rubbed, red and raw.{Rubbed, red and raw is a song done by 
someone I know, just in case anyone's wondering about the strange 
combination.})



__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Got something to say? Say it better with Yahoo! Video Mail
>http://mail.yahoo.com




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





From theennead at attbi.com  Sat Feb 16 10:31:47 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:31:47 -0000
Subject: Avery and Ambushes
In-Reply-To: <a4k1mi+sck3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4lcej+iojb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35324

The not-altogether-lacking-in-blood-thirst herself Tabouli wrote:

> A mere hour later she has managed to convince Pigwidgeon, Errol and
> Hedwig to sacrifice their lives and feathers for the cause, and is 
> swiftly, silently closing in on the savage sofa springers, ready to 
> smother and bind them all in...

> F.E.A.T.H.E.R.B.O.A.S.! (Foaming Enthusiasts of Ambush, Torture, and
> Hostility, Embracing Really Bloodthirsty Operations And Savagery))

Elkins, blinking quizzically as she tries to deduce just what Cindy 
might have *meant* when she just hissed "Take one for the team, 
Elkins!" and shoved her off of the rock like that, catches her 
balance, removes her pipe from her mouth to gesticulate, half-turns, 
and has time for only the briefest of alarmed squawks before finding 
herself lying on soft sand, wrapped head to toe in mangy old feather 
boas.  She thrashes wildly for a few moments then freezes, staring in 
disbelief at the bloodied owl feathers -- the bloodied and yet 
monstrously *familiar* owl feathers -- from which her bonds would 
seem to be crafted.

"I--" she gasps, a look of sick horror slowly spreading across her 
face.  "Errol?"  And then a hoarse, a disbelieving whisper: "*Pig*?"

"NO!" she screams, struggling madly to free herself from the remains 
of these cruelly- and gratuitously-sacrificed minor characters.  
"NO!  Oh my God, Tabouli, what have you *done?*  MURDERER! 
MADWOMAN!!  FIEND!!!!"

As she degenerates into incoherent hysteria, Elkins' alarmed 
companions rush to her aid: Tough Cindy, who begins slapping her 
repeatedly in the face while screaming, spit flying from the corners 
of her mouth, "Suck it *up,* soldier!  Suck it *up,* damn you!"; and 
Amiable Eileen (looking cute as all get-out in that horned helmet she 
always wears to our FEATHERBOAS meetings as a part of her blood-
thirsty "Lucky Kari" persona), who after a few futile attempts at 
intervention ("Er...Cindy?  I, um, don't think that that's 
necessarily, um, helping.  I think, you know, that the...the 
*hitting* may be...well, it just might be increasing her sense of 
anxiety..."), simply shrugs, sighs, shakes her head, and goes off to 
brew a nice hot cup of tea.


Some time later, having restored a good deal of Elkins' equanimity
(or at the very least, her *sanguinity*) by whipping out her tattered 
old cloth-bound copy of the _The Lord of the Rings_ and reading 
aloud -- in a calm and soothing and unthreatening tone of voice -- 
that nice passage from "The Siege of Gondor" in which the forces of 
Mordor demoralize their enemies by catapulting the heads of the 
fallen over the walls of the city, Eileen admits:

> I said, "Crouch Jr., Lestranges, and another DE" to myself, and 
> never even thought of it again. I also ask my long-suffering 
> brother to explain commercials when we're watching TV. "But why was 
> the guy standing there with the beer can?"

Elkins, by now only occasionally breaking into muffled sobs ("Pig...
Pig...oh, Tabouli, that wasn't necessary...it wasn't *necessary...*") 
huddles shivering over her bloodied owl feathers and her nice hot cup 
of tea, but still manages a watery smile for Eileen.  

She wonders whether this would be a good time to admit that she 
herself had to have the plot of "Star Wars" explained to her at least 
seven times before she could even begin to understand what was 
supposed to be happening in that film.  ("But I don't understand!  
What's a 'Droid?'  And what's a 'Tractor Beam?'  And why on earth did 
they have to keep running around through all of those *corridors*?")

Before she can make a decision on this matter, however, Eileen is 
snatched up by the crew of the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS and hauled off for 
some Imperius-induced deprogramming below decks.  Elkins contemplates 
staging a rescue attempt for an entire three seconds before thinking 
better of it.  She finishes off her tea and stares down at the sand, 
trying hard not to look out to sea.

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

"From the brig of the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS, where she has been put to 
meditate on her nearly accomplished mutiny, and to be restrained till 
the madness has passed," Eileen wrote (on the all-consuming question 
of whether Fourth Man Avery is Thin Nervous Eye-Darty Man or Thick-
set Blank-Stare Man):

> I would not feel that good if we partnered the renowned Mrs. 
> Lestrange with "thin nervous eye-darty man". 

Really?  That's interesting, because before I saw the TRUTH and the 
LIGHT of Fourth Man, I had always just naturally assumed that Thin 
Nervous Eye-Darty Man was Lestrange.  Something about all of those 
assertive women I've known who've had things for frail and vulnerable 
men, I suppose.

But I quite agree that Darty makes a far better Avery than Blankstare 
does, so poor old Florence...er, Mrs. Lestrange, I mean...will just 
have to settle.

Story of her life, really.


> Of course, I could add dealing with an idiotic husband, who messed
> up all their plans and told Lucius Malfoy about the Voldemort hunt, 
> who passed the information on to the authorities. (One of my little 
> pet non-canon-related theories.) 

So you figure slippery old Lucius turned them in, eh?  That cad!

So how come?  He'd already wrangled his acquittal by then, surely.  
Was it because he was convinced that they'd get caught anyway?  Or 
was it more that he feared that they might actually *succeed* in 
finding Voldemort?


> How come no-one waxes eloquent about Mr. Lestrange, btw?

Because he hasn't had a single line of dialogue.  Avery's at least had
seven words, and some screaming.  Also, neither of the guys in the 
Pensieve scene has very much sex appeal.


> > Hey, young Crouch *could* have been innocent -- of torturing the 
> > Longbottoms, at any rate. 

> I want to keep Crouch Jr. involved, since it makes the 
> Neville/Crouch Jr. link more poignant. 

I quite agree.  I, too, prefer Guilty-As-Sin Barty.  Although I'm 
still plumping for him as Neville's savior.  I like that, too.

> Kudos on the subversive Neville-Crouch theory, but does it explain 
> why Crouch seeks Neville out?

He was just helpless to resist that mystic bond, poor fellow.  Also, 
he was curious to see what the little rugrat had grown up to be like.


> "Nerveless Hysterics" aren't usually that great at torturing people 
> when push comes to shove, come to think about it.

No.  Well, that's the underlying premise of "Fourth Man With 
Imperius:" that Avery was always far too squeamish for wet work, and 
so his buddies were "helping him out" by Imperio'ing him through the 
tough stuff.


> What if Avery's clearing included hard evidence that he hadn't been 
> involved in the torturings? Wizarding evidence of DNA's stature. 

It's a bit hard to imagine how one could come up with hard evidence 
for such a thing, isn't it?  After all, as Frank Longbottom 
discovered the hard way, it *is* notoriously difficult to prove a 
negative proposition.


<Eileen tries to reconcile the Elkins who is "relieved" at the 
thought of Snape worming his way back into Voldemort's good graces 
without having to endure a single Cruciatus with the Elkins who was 
chanting "BLOODY AMBUSH! BLOODY AMBUSH!" and fails.>

Well, Rosier's already dead, isn't he?  I mean, it's already canon 
that he was killed in a battle with Aurors.  So it may as well have 
been a Great and Glorious Bloody Ambush as any other type of 
conflict: it's more fun that way, and more dramatic, and it doesn't 
hurt him any more than any other manner of being killed in combat 
would.  It's not as if I'm plumping for the guy to have died *hard* 
or anything.  I'm not hoping that he particularly *suffered.*  I just 
think that a Great and Glorious Bloody Ambush has dramatic appeal.

Crucio'd Severus, though...no.  Even in my most FEATHERBOAS-ish mind-
set, I just can't relish such a thought.


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


On the Fourth Man timeline problem created by this bit of can(n)on 
shot:

> > "Avery-Nott-Crabbe-Goyle-"
> 
> > "You are merely repeating the names of those who were cleared of 
> > being Death Eaters thirteen years ago," said Fudge angrily. "You 
> > could have found those names in old reports of the trials!" 

Cindy wrote:

> However, I can see through my binoculars that all is not well in 
> the Fourth Man two-person kayak.  Indeed, it appears that the 
> Fourth Man has fallen overboard and is flailing helplessly, unable 
> to haul his ample backside to the beach. 

<Elkins blinks innocently from behind her (now-broken) spectacles>

Shall we assume then, Cindy, that you favor Thick-set Blank-Stare Man 
as Avery?  

Or are you supporting Eileen's suggestion that perhaps Dudley Dursley 
was actually the Fourth Man?

I suggested that Avery was indeed acquitted on grounds of Imperius 
back in '81, then nailed for the Longbottom Affair in '82 or '83, and 
then pardoned as a part of a Bleeding Heart Backlash in '84.  I 
further suggested that (a) Fudge himself was swept to office on the 
same wave of public sentiment that led to Avery's pardon, (b) it was 
a very short-lived wave which receded quickly and abruptly, and (c) 
the reason that Fudge mentions the acquittal, rather than the more 
recent pardon, is because he doesn't really want people thinking too 
much about that particular period of political history, which casts 
his own position in a somewhat dubious light.

Cindy objected to this theory on (if I've got this right) two grounds.

First, she found the idea that Avery managed to get himself off the 
hook *twice* rather much to accept.

And second, she didn't like my proposed timeline.

Her reasons for the latter (like my reasons for favoring my own 
timeline) seem to have a good deal to do with her preferences in 
Memory Charm Theory.

She wrote:

> For that, I have to go back to a timeline theory I used in
> the "Neville Has A Reverse Memory Charm" dialogue (which apparently 
> Elkins has decided to spurn in favor of the wholly implausible 
> "Neville Has A Memory Charm" theory -- don't get me started).

<raises hands quickly in defensive gesture>

Hey, hey!  Hold on a minute here.  I've got no beef with Reverse 
Memory Charmed Neville.  Tell the truth, I'm an agnostic on the topic 
of what *sort* of Memory Impairing Charm the poor kid's saddled 
with.  Memory Charm, Reverse Memory Charm...it's all good, as far as 
I'm concerned. I just want him to have something of the sort.

(And besides, I can never keep all of those horrifically long, if 
fantastically clever, acronyms clear in my mind, anyway.)

What I *do* want, though, is for him to have been old enough when it 
happened to make for a rousing good tale.  And to my mind, it just 
isn't very *satisfying* if he was a babe in arms at the time.  I want 
him at least a toddler, old enough for the event to have left some 
serious *trauma,* dammit.

But there's no reason that you can't have your Reverse Memory Charm 
scenario taking place in '82 or '83, rather than in '81.

Is there?


Cindy writes (citing an older post):

> Here's a quick rundown on the canon evidence that the Lestranges 
> were apprehended soon after Voldemort fell, not years later:

> In Padfoot Returns, Sirius tells us about the circumstances under 
> which Barty Crouch Jr. is brought to Azkaban and everything going 
> on at the time. He says:

> "When Voldemort disappeared, it looked like only a matter of time 
> until Crouch got the top job." 

We're talking about politics, though.  Whether the Minister of Magic 
is appointed or elected by some variant of Parliament or in a general 
election or whatever, it's still not likely to be the sort of thing 
that can happen overnight, is it?  I mean, if I said something 
like, "it looks like only a matter of time before Tim Collins becomes 
the next Prime Minister," then you wouldn't think that I necessarily 
meant "by the end of the year," would you?  

(Actually, you'd probably just think that I'd gone mad.  But I trust 
that you get my drift.)

"A matter of time" in a political context doesn't mean "a matter of 
days," nor even "a matter of months."  It could very well mean "a 
matter of years."


> "But then something rather unfortunate happened. <snip> Crouch's 
> own son was caught with a group of Death Eaters who'd managed to 
> talk their way out of Azkaban. Apparently they were trying to find 
> Voldemort and return him to power. <snip> I saw the Dementors 
> bringing him in. <snip> He can't have been more than nineteen."

I agree with the notion that Sirius says 19, rather than 20, because 
he's fairly certain that the kid *is* nineteen.  No quibbles there.

Where I've got a problem, though, is here:

> The Lexicon list Barty Crouch Jr.'s birthday as 1962. So if he is 
> 19 when he goes to Azkaban, that would be 1981. As Fourth Man Avery 
> would have been arrested at the same time as young Crouch, this is 
> also in 1981.

But that's a tautology, surely?

The only reason that the Lexicon lists Barty's birthday in 1962 is 
because Vander Ark (at whose feet I worship, don't get me wrong here) 
chose to assume that his trial took place in 1981.

So you can't then go arguing that the "proof" that the trial took 
place in 1981 is that Crouch was born in 1962!  That's circular 
reasoning.

There's no canonical proof for *either* Crouch being born in 1962 *or*
his trial taking place in 1981.  It is somewhat canonically 
suggested, yes.  But it's hardly a definite thing.  


But anyway, I don't really see why the timeline issue is really 
relevant to your preference for a Reverse Memory Charm.  Is there 
some reason that you *can't* have a Reverse Memory Charm in 1983?


On the subject of Reverse Memory Charms, Eileen asked:

> How does Avery get off if Neville with his magically enhanced 
> testimony fingers him and Crouch? 

Cindy answered:

> Because after some time passed, people started questioning the 
> reliability of this Reverse Memory Charm. 

I like that!  I can just imagine the insinuations levelled against 
those responsible for questioning Reverse Memory Charmed witnesses, 
the accusations that the questioners must have planted Terrible 
Notions in the minds of those already rendered highly suggestible...

Yes, yes.  I like it.  And I like it very much as the grounds for 
Avery's pardon.  Okay, so I'm on board with the whole Reverse Memory 
Charm thing.  Count me in.  (Er...which of those very long acronyms 
is ours again?)

But I still think that Avery's Imperius defense was how he got out of 
his *first* arrest, back in 1981, while his "I wasn't anywhere *near* 
the place that night -- Memory Enhancement Is A Fraud!" defense was 
how he got out of his *second* bout of trouble.

I like Avery worming his way out of trouble twice, myself.  It makes 
him seem clever and sneaky, when in actuality, he's Just Plain
Lucky.  It would also make him ulcerated and paranoid, I'm sure, not 
to mention deeply suspected by just about everyone he encounters just 
about everywhere he goes.  


In explanation of why she preferred a 1984 pardon to a 1981 pardon, 
Eileen wrote:

> And Crouch certainly has to "die" quickly to get this theory going. 
> No, too short. I like Elkins's idea better. Sorry.

Cindy blinked in confusion:

> I don't follow you. Crouch gets sprung from Azkaban whenever he 
> gets sprung. I don't think it matters much for the timeline exactly 
> when this happens. Avery, however, gets out quickly -- as soon as 
> Fudge takes over.  What am I missing?

Er...if I may step in here, I think that what Eileen was referring to
there was Crouch Sr's *political* death.  She meant, I think, that she
prefers a scenario in which Crouch's fall from power comes rather 
later than the end of 1981 -- which would, after all, be only two 
months after Voldemort's disappearance, barely time enough for the 
first batch of DEs to be rounded up, really.


<brightly>  But there's no reason that there can't be a Reverse Memory
Charm!


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


On Avery's Job In the Ministry of Magic


Eileen wrote:

> Then, Elkins and Cindy reconcile to allow Avery to have a secondary 
> job in the DMC. I'm no-one to complain, but no-one liked my 
> suggestion that he works for Bagman (ever-so-evil or not) and is 
> the new Minister of Magical Sports and Games. 

Oh, I'm so sorry, Eileen.  I did mean to comment on that, but then I 
just got all...distracted.

Avery in Magical Sports and Games proved a bit difficult for me to 
imagine, I'm afraid, mainly I suppose because I just don't see Avery 
as quite the, uh, Sporty type.  And trying to envision him having a 
chummy relationship with Ludo Bagman (ever-so-evil or not) just kind 
of...made my head explode.

Although it does have some humorous possibilities.  I imagine Avery 
flinching every time friendly old Ludo slaps him on the shoulder.

But then, I kind of liked him in Magical Catastrophes for much the 
same reasons.  Can't you just imagine the Nerveless Hysteric being 
sent out to do the field work?  

"Well...uh...what sort of, er, 'accident' was it, precisely?"  
<pause> "Oh, God, NO!"  <pause>  "Oh, *no.*  No, no, no, not at all.  
Of *course* we can sort that out for you!  We take care of, uh, those 
sorts of problems here all the time.  When I said 'oh God no' just 
then, I was, er, just..."  <long pause>  "You want to know if there's 
someone else here who can handle this.  Yes...well, er...yes.  I 
suppose that would be all for the best, really."

I also liked DMC because it was Fudge's old Department, and I liked 
Cindy's suggestion that Fudge was the one who gave Avery his old job 
back.

Eileen:

> But Avery really has repented, so Fudge isn't afraid, and feels 
> sorry for him, as the description below warrants....

> /me begins to cry and purchases a S.Y.N.C.H.O.P.H.A.N.T.S. badge.

<big smile>

Oh, Eileen!  You're a fan of "Fourth Man With Remorse," then.  That's 
so...so *sweet!*

<Elkins dabs at her own eyes and presses a S.Y.C.O.P.H.A.N.T.S. badge 
into Eileen's hand, waving away all offers of payment with a 
sentimental sniff>

I like my Fourth Man With Remorse too.

See?  We're such nice people.  There really *must* have been 
something in Cindy's brandy.

> I've been wondering that too. Something is wrong with me. This is 
> not me, the person who cringes when Wile E. Coyote hits the tarmac. 

Oh, poor Wile E. Coyote!  How I always felt for him!  The Twentieth-
Century Sisyphus!  A True Existentialist Hero!  Oh, but how I always 
longed for a day of *reckoning,* a day when he would finally *catch* 
that rotten Roadrunner and rip the smug little bastard limb from li...

Oh.  Er, yeah...okay.  So maybe it wasn't *all* the brandy.


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

As for Voldemort's Wand...

Much as I do love giving Avery *lots* to do, to support the notion 
that he really is a *terribly* important character, I remain rather 
attached to the notion that Pettigrew was the one keeping Voldemort's 
wand for him all these years.

But if anyone ever comes up with a really *good* suggestion as to how 
we might lay that at Avery's feet, then I might change my mind.


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

Eileen wrote:

> The Saga of Percy Weatherby

> Percy, now the youngest ever Department Head, has Avery shuffled 
> into his department. Who wouldn't try to pawn Avery off on the 
> newcomer who doesn't know the ins and outs of things? Avery is so 
> ill respected at the Ministry that - Horror of Horrors! - everyone 
> except Percy calls him by his yet to be determined first name. 

And Percy calls him...Ainsbury!

> Unfortunately, Avery, at V's command, gets rather close to
> Weatherby, resulting in misfortunes for our side. When HRH finally 
> visit the Ministry, which will happen I'm sure, we'll have a moment 
> of irony, when they meet Avery, and some office worker makes some 
> remark about him using his given name, that would have told HRH the 
> game was up, if the last name had been used. 

If only Percy had remembered the poor sod's name, things might have 
turned out very differently.  But nooo...

> Now, that's uncanonical. 

Nonsense!  It is merely...speculative.

> PS I still can't get over the fact that we've seriously gone into 
> analysing an almost non-existent character. 

Non-existent!  Non-exISTent?!?!

He has seven words of *dialogue,* Eileen!  That's more than Lestrange 
gets.  Hell, it's even more than Arabella Figg gets, and you wouldn't 
call *her* "almost non-existent," would you?

"Almost non-existent."  Sheesh.  Keep your voice down, will you?  
You'll hurt Avery's feelings.  As if it isn't bad enough that Cindy 
wants to *drown* him...

Cindy:

> Having pushed Avery overboard because his sniveling was dancing on
> my last good nerve...

<Elkins gasps and leans over the side to haul Avery back in, very 
nearly overbalancing the entire kayak>

Cindy!  You *know* you can't do that!  JKR *needs* him to -- just 
cough it all up, Mr. Avery, that's right, that's super, sweetheart, 
yes, you're doing fine -- *needs* him to fulfill his secondary 
villain function in Book Five!  You can't just -- oh, for God's sake, 
Avery.  Here.  Take my jacket -- you can't just go *murdering* the 
poor man like that.  How's the poor wretch ever supposed to buy the 
farm in Book Five if you've already...

Oh.  Oh, dear.  No, no, Mr. Avery, *please.*  Please try to contain 
yourself.  I didn't mean it like that.  I'm sure you'll survive all 
the way to the end of the series.  Yes, I'm *sure* of it!  Honest, I 
am.  All I meant there was...

<exasperated sigh>

Oh, for God's sake, Cindy.  Now you see what you've done?


> Cindy -- finding it lonely in the Ambush-On-Dumbledore's-Orders 
> camp, the Reverse-Memory-Charm camp, the Bagman-Is-A-DE camp, the 
> Sirius-Was-Having-His-Way-With-Florence camp, and the Snape-Has-A-
> Debt-To-James camp, but consoling herself by eating all of the 
> Smores singlehandedly

Hey!  I'm with you on the Reverse Memory Charm thing, and Sirius *was*
having his way with Florence...even if that Florence happened to also
be the future Mrs. Lestrange.  

So cheer up.  And give some of those Smores to Avery, will you?  He's 
chilled and upset; he's shivering.  He needs the chocolate.

-- Elkins




From theennead at attbi.com  Sat Feb 16 12:29:13 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 12:29:13 -0000
Subject: Why Suspect Lupin?  (WAS: Snape, Lupin's Mistakes Again)
In-Reply-To: <a4eotq+114l0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4ljap+iqgu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35325

Cindy wrote:

> Boy. This "Lupin Has Edge" theory presents some problems for me. 
> I'm used to defending Lupin against full frontal assaults. He's a 
> screw-up. He's too perfect. He's boring. He's dishonest. That I 
> can handle.

<crossly>

Well, *I* most certainly can't.  Lupin is not a screw-up, and he 
isn't 'too perfect,' and he is most certainly *not* boring!

Hmmph.  Who says such things?

Dishonest, though...  

<thinks about it for a moment, then shrugs>  

Well, okay.  So maybe he is, a little.  At times.  But no more so 
than many, and far less so than some.


> What we have here is a sneak attack. I can't really deny that Lupin 
> has Edge. 

'Sneak attack?'  But Edge is *good,* Cindy.  Edge is really really 
*good.*  Edge is...

Well, I think that maybe 'Edge' is for me a bit like what 'Tough' is 
for you.  Capiche?

People with Edge are the people I *like.*


> That bit about how his wand use is described as "lazy" is 
> particularly upsetting, because it could very well be a bit of 
> foreshadowing that Lupin won't finish the series in quite the 
> heroic way I imagine. 

Oh.  Ugly thought.  I hadn't meant to imply that at *all.*  And, er...
I certainly hope that the author hadn't either.

Nah, I'm pretty sure Lupin's slated for heroic death.  It will be 
very sad and noble, and we will all cry.


> So what did cause Sirius to suspect Lupin and prefer to switch to 
> Peter? Peter, that's what. 

Oh, sure.  I don't doubt that Peter had a lot to do with it.  I think
that the werewolf thing had a lot to do with it too, for that matter.
But I was just listing things about Lupin's character that might have
contributed...and I think that there are definitely things that would
have.


Eileen wrote:

> "'They call it the Dementor's Kiss,' said Lupin, with a slightly 
> twisted smile."

> And at that moment, I was crying, "Harry! Harry! It's Sirius Black! 
> When will you realize?" "Slightly twisted." That is awful. 

Laura replied:

> Now, I am not going to try to deny for a second that Lupin Has
> Edge. However, I interpreted that line in PoA to mean something 
> entirely different. Perhaps it's because I never thought that Lupin 
> could actually be Black (were we being led to believe this? there 
> was a red-herring? *looks alarmed* I must've missed it. *depressed 
> sigh* I was never any good at fishing)...

LOL!

Oh, lord.  I had poor Lupin chalked down not only as Sirius Black, 
but also as a werewolf (whose wolf form was this big *black* wolf, 
see...) *and* as using Polyjuice Potion (a plot device that was still 
very much on my mind right after CoS, but which I had conveniently 
forgotten all about and thus didn't even think to *consider* when I 
read GoF), *and* as...

Well.  It was a pure and simple mess, was what it was, and no matter 
how I tried, I couldn't seem to make the moon cycles work out right 
to match up with the Grim sightings, or figure out how Dumbledore was 
being fooled, or figure out how no one ever noticed him transforming 
back and forth at the Quiddich match, or figure out how he could be 
both a 'transform-at-will' sort of werewolf *and* a cyclical one, 
or...well, or make any of it make the slightest bit of sense at all, 
actually.

I was always certain that he was a Good Guy, though. 
Because "slightly twisted," while perhaps it is a bit "awful," was 
also just too darned likeable for me not to think that Lupin/Black 
must be a really Good Guy at heart.

I'm prone to slightly twisted smiles myself, you see.


Laura still:

> ...but I always thought that the "slightly twisted smile" in 
> question was not meant to be "twisted" in a psycho-homicidal way, 
> but in a grimacing, half-smile kind of way. . . .Also, when I went 
> back and re-read the books, I figured it also having something to 
> do with his internal struggle over the entire Sirius's fate. .
> . .Lupin seems to me to be the type of person to respond to such an 
> inner conflict with a melancholy, ironic smile. 

Oh no, I didn't read it as psycho-homicidal in the least.  It's not 
at all a *happy* smile, and I agree with you that he's horribly 
conflicted about the idea of Sirius Black getting the Kiss.

But it's not exactly, to my mind, a "melancholy, ironic smile" 
either.  It's both grimmer and...well, and more twisted than that.  
In my reading, anyway.


Back to Eileen:

> To "read" others..... I should probably shut up about Tolkien. But 
> in Tolkien, we see the same trait being used evilly: to manipulate 
> and wound people, by Denethor. 

Now how could I object to your fondness for Tolkien, Eileen, when you 
cheered me so considerably with it earlier?  (Well...okay, so that was
just an action I *ascribed* to you, rather than your own action...but
your Tolkien references always cheer me up, so I thought it was fair.)

Ah, Denethor...  You know, Denethor was my favorite non-SYCOPHANTS-
ish character in all of LotR?  I always really *felt* for Denethor.

Must be that Edge thing again.  I always liked Pippin, too, for that 
matter.  I liked that touch of morbid curiosity to him, that morbid 
fascination: the way that he never seemed to be able to resist doing 
things like throwing rocks down deep pits and awakening ancient Evil, 
or staring into Eastward-turned Palantir, or...  Well, you know.  
Pippin was Denethor Lite, really.  That's why they got on so well.

Edge, yes.  Edge is good.  I like Edge.



Kimberley wrote:

> I tried and I tried to get caught up before commenting on this 
> thread, but I'm all in this dark, sexy place Lupin-wise now, and I 
> just can't wait.

Hi, Kimberley!  I remember that you leapt to my defense 'way back
when I was claiming Lupin's dialogue in Shrieking Shack as mildly
sadistic.  I always meant to continue with that thread, but it sort
of fell by the wayside, so a belated thanks.

I also seem to remember that you were finding yourself a little 
disturbed back then about the Edge-is-sexy thing too, so I thought 
I'd try to reassure you a little bit.  You wrote:

> It's that insight - if he wanted to, he could go straight for the 
> most tender spot and make a grown man cry (hmmm... like Peter?), 
> but (unless terribly provoked... like with Peter) he chooses not 
> to. 

> I was blushing reading Elkins' post and realizing that I'm, well... 
> turned on by his capacity for cruelty. How can this be? . . . .I'm 
> beginning to think I'm a sick and twisted individual.

No, no, no!  Not sick and twisted!  Not at all!

Of course it's sexy.  I mean, if someone has the insight to know how
to really hurt you, then you've gotta figure they've got the insight
to know how to really *please* you as well, right?

And besides, "could really hurt me...but never would."  That's sort 
of the entire underlying dynamic of intimacy right there in a 
nutshell, isn't it?

Relax.  You're normal.  


-- Elkins




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Sat Feb 16 13:35:36 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 00:35:36 +1100
Subject: Catching Cupid's Snitch
Message-ID: <002501c1b6ef$060340c0$d71cddcb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35326

(Captain Tabouli, reclining peacefully in her crow's nest, hears the roar of a jetski, with cheering in its wake.  She takes out her telescope again and studies this brash newcomer carefully.  It bears the legend "Cupid's Snitch" on it in golden writing)

Hmmm.

An ingenious way of tying together Bertha Jorkins, Mrs Lestrange/Florence and the whole Sirius/Snape conundrum.  I particularly like the Florence Lestrange bit, and salute Elkins respectfully!  I like to cram as much canon and complication as possible into a backstory.

My main issues with it are character based (and therefore rather subjective).  Elkins cites the following excerpts as evidence of Sirius' "lingering hostility" towards Bertha for springing him and Florence behind the greenhouses...

"Listen, I knew Bertha Jorkins . . . She was at Hogwarts when I was,
a few years above your dad and me. And she was an idiot. Very nosy, 
but no brains, none at all. It's not a good combination."

"Maybe she's changed since I knew her, but the Bertha I knew wasn't 
forgetful at all -- quite the reverse. She was a bit dim, but she had 
an excellent memory for gossip. It used to get her into a lot of 
trouble; she never knew when to keep her mouth shut." 

You know, this just doesn't sound like Sirius-with-a-specific-personal-grudge to me.  He'd described as speaking "grimly", but it seems a situational grimness rather than a personally directed grimness.  A neutral, general assessment, rather than a long-term smouldering resentment.  He does seem to know her well, but I put this down to her notoriety rather than a personal issue.

We've *seen* Sirius with a long-term, smouldering personal grudge: towards Crouch senior.  When Harry asks him if he knows him, Sirius' face darkens, his voice grows quiet, and he becomes "as menacing as the night when Harry had first met him, when when had still believed Sirius to be a murderer".  OK, so this darkness is understandable in the circumstances, but we don't see even a trace of it with Bertha.

Then there's his feelings for Snape.  As Elkins rightly muses, the antipathy between Sirius and Snape does seem excessive and probably needs a specific explanation (mental note to self: incorporate into increasingly elaborate LOLLIPOPS backstory some time).   However, when Sirius gets onto Snape, he descends from his reasonably cynical, adult criticisms of Bertha into schoolboy insults: "slimy, oily, greasy-haired kid, he was".  That sounds like a cool, good-looking popular kid's sneers at a geeky loser if ever I heard 'em.  Note that it's Harry and Ron who grin at each other, perhaps rightly suspecting that Hermione is too mature and has too much faith in Dumbledore's judgment to enjoy sneering at Snape.  This suggests to me that the antipathy between the two really does date back to high school days, unlike his criticisms of Bertha, which seem a generalised, adult musing on her weaknesses and their risks.

In fact, I have trouble seeing Sirius as a long-term grudge-bearer driven by a crush at all.  I can see him lashing out and hexing Bertha, but he doesn't seem the brooding, scheming type to me, except when it's forced on him in Azkaban, of course.  He's impulsive, straightforward, a man of action, a do-now-think-later-if-at-all type, and was even more so as a teenager when the crush was allegedly driving him.  Premeditation is not his style. Nor is giving up his dead sexy girlfriend because his friends disapproved, methinks.  As we know, once Sirius gets an idea in his head, he acts on it and to hell with the consequences.  In the face of terrible odds and as a wanted man, he did terrible things to rescue Harry from Wormtail.  Admittedly, hanging on to his girl in the face of social disapproval isn't quite the same thing, but all the same, we know he's tenacious and acts impulsively.  If he really thought Snape was sliming around his beloved, he'd have gone straight up to him and Banished a suit of armour at his head.

As for Mrs Lestrange... take up with a Gryffindor and then break up with him because her friends disapproved?  The same Mrs Lestrange who, in her one starring appearance, sat regal and unrepentant in her chains, said "Throw us into Azkaban, we will wait! (...) We alone were faithful!  We alone tried to find him!", and swept out of the dungeon to her doom???  Naaaaah.

Say what you will about Mrs Lestrange, weakness and humility are not her things.  She is proud and defiant and principled and loyal to the point where she is prepared to go to a hideous prison for life rather than back down.  Why on earth, then, would she skulk about having a clandestine relationship in the first place, and then, still more implausibly, dump him because her friends didn't like it?  Can't see it.  Can't see it at *all*.  More likely her loyalty to Slytherin would preclude such a relationship in the first place (unless fuelled by some sinister, manipulative ulterior motive), or, if his Dead Sexiness was too much to resist, she would have seduced him, cool, sultry and unashamed.  And in public, in front of the whole of Slytherin *and* Gryffindor, if necessary to prove her point.  A mere few years later, she swept unbowed into Azkaban... for such a woman, the disapproval of her friends for her boyfriend would barely register.

> Well, Florence brooded.  She dwelled.  She had that Slytherin 
tendency towards resentment, don't you know, and unlike Sirius, she 
didn't have a very close circle of friends to see her through.  She 
became...withdrawn.  Bitter.  Twisted.  She began to hold the 
Gryffindors (especially that nasty little Mudblood Lily Evans) solely 
responsible for the break-up; her mind turned to thoughts of bloody 
vengeance.  She also started pestering her classmate Severus "I Know 
More Hexes Than Old Flitwick Himself" Snape to teach her all of the 
nastiest curses he knew.<

As for LOSTLIVES (Love Of Sirius Turning Lestrange Into Voldemort's Evil Servant) I find this unlikely.  Put Crouch Junior and yes, even Snape, under enough pressure, and watch 'em cave into a quivering, begging mess and a spitting, bellowing mess respectively.  Crouch Junior and Mrs Lestrange are being confronted with the same horrible fate for the same reason in the same gathering, and look how Mrs Lestrange handles it!  She has dignity and self-control in the face of horror.

I think the only way we'd really get her scheming and twisted is if *Sirius* left *her*, and even more so if the main reason was as pitiful to her as "my friends don't like you 'cos you're a slimy Slytherin".  Think 'Dangerous Liaisons'.

> So this was the real motivation underlying the viciousness of 
Sirius prank.  While he might have told himself that "he just wasn't 
thinking," deep down inside he wanted Snape dead.  Dead, dead, dead, 
as Cindy would put it.  To save his *girl*, you see.  To save her 
from Snape's bad influence.<

(Hey... maybe it was Florence Lestrange-to-be who planted the Prank idea into Sirius' head when Snape had the temerity to get a better mark than her in Potions!).  This still doesn't sit with Sirius' character, to my mind.  He's a Take Direct Action type.  He's a Speak Without Thinking Type.  The Prank is just too indirect a way of avenging himself on Snape.  No festering by the lake cooking up a Prank for Sirius.  I think his spilling the info about the Willow is much more likely to be an unpremeditated, hotheaded comment made without thought of consequences.

In the same way that breaking into Hogwarts and heading straight for the boys' dorm on Hallowe'en was his impulsive most direct way of getting to Wormtail... forgot about the portrait, didn't he?  (was it there when he was at Hogwarts?)  What did he do then?  Tried to slash the portrait and keep on going!  He only thought of getting hold of the password later, didn't he?  Surely if he'd been more of a schemer, more of a brooder he'd've found out about the portrait and taken it into account, thinking up a plan.  Even skulking discreetly as a dog and eavesdropping on the students would have been a start.  Then, when he got in, he didn't try to quietly slip open the curtains and nab the sleeping rat, did he?  No, he slashed the curtains and dived for it!

C'mon, this is *not* a brooding, scheming, grudge-bearing  thinker we have here.  This is a take-the-most-direct-action-possible-and-learn-by-trial-and-error type.  This is a find a problem, do something about it, and then get over it type.  *Snape* is the tortured brooding type who holds grudges to the end of his days and from one generation to the next.  In my LOLLIPOPS opinion, he's a much more likely candidate for an undying, twisted crush than Sirius and Mrs Lestrange.  The only way I'd buy Mrs Lestrange as affected by unrequited love is, as I mentioned, if she is driven to avenge a mortal insult (i.e. being rejected).

>As canonical evidence for this theory, I offer the following:
>
>(1)  Florence has a first name, but no last name.  Mrs. Lestrange has 
a last name, but no first name.  Coincidence?  Oh, I think not!<

I like it.  This I'm happy to buy.  Florence Lestrange-to-be and Sirius I'll leave on the shelf, though, unless OoP provides some conclusive evidence to the contrary.

>(2)  Sirius' strange omission of Mrs. Lestranges first *or* maiden
name when he lists her as a member of Snape's old gang.  (...)
It's odd, isn't it?  That Mrs. Lestrange's inclusion in the list 
should be subsumed into her husband's identity like that?  She's 
almost *glossed,* really:
>
>"The Lestranges -- they're a married couple -- they're in Azkaban."
>
>It almost sounds as if Sirius would rather not talk about her -- or 
even to *think* about her --  at all, doesn't it?  Consistent, 
surely, with how one might talk about ones Lost Love, when said Lost 
Love not only married somebody else, but also became a ravenously 
sadistic Dark Witch?<

You mean, rather like the way Snape snarls all the time about James the arrogant Quidditch star and how much Harry resembles him, yet avoids any mention of Lily?  Or the way Hagrid gives away that there's a very good reason for Snape to hate Harry and then hastily changes the subject (though everyone else is happy to attribute Snape's feelings to jealousy of James' Quidditch performance, a well-known chick impressor)??  Or the way that Lily, though Harry's mother and therefore bound to be significant in some way (as JKR has admitted), has been almost totally glossed over so far, whereas James has had quite a lot of air time???  :-D

>(3) Dumbledore's Pensieve.  Remember that the memory from which he 
>recalls Harry is the Lestranges' sentencing.  Shortly thereafter, his 
>Pensieve coughs up the memory of his interview with the young Bertha 
>Jorkins, right after the hexing incident.  He remembers asking her:
>
>"But why, Bertha, . . . why did you have to follow him in the first 
place?"
>
>The anguished tone seems rather out of keeping for a simple matter of 
a fast hex, doesn't it?  No, Dumbledore's agony there arises from his
wise suspicion that this entire Sirius Black affair is going to prove 
the last straw for the unstable young Florence, that it will be the 
>catalyst which will push her right over the edge into Darkness.

Actually, the last thing that happened in the last Pensieve scene was the screaming, sobbing Barty Junior being hauled off to Azkaban.  Could Dumbledore's sadness (akin to Dumbledore's Gleam?) in fact reflect the fact that Florence was kissing **BARTY**???  Ahaaaa!  Maybe Barty was a good, upstanding, brilliant young Slytherin who had the promise to become one of the house's most upstanding graduates until he fell into the clutches of Florence Lestrange-to-be, who preyed on him for reasons of her own (getting close to the son of the powerful wizard tipped to be the future Minister of Magic and avenging her parents against Barty Senior... see below).  Florence, being cunning and perceptive, detected Barty's key weakness... feeling neglected and intimidated by his ruthless, workaholic father.  Nothing he did was ever good enough to make his father notice him.  My, my, my, said the spider to the fly...

Barty had tried schoolwork, but top marks just weren't enough.  He'd tried Quidditch, but his father dismissed Quidditch as a fool's pastime, and one tainted by the activities of that suspicious oaf Ludo Bagman.  What was left?  *Rebellion*, of course.  When Florence caught his eye, the dead sexy older woman Florence whose parents were both known Death Eaters sentenced to Azkaban by his father, he *knew* how violently his father would disapprove.  How could he resist?

For the first few delirious weeks, Barty and Florence conducted a relationship on the sly.  Barty because despite his desire to rebel, he was secretly still too afraid of throwing away his last chance of winning his father's approval (clandestine rebellion providing defiance without risk), Florence because she had darker plans for him, which involved slowly inviegling him into Dark circles until Barty Senior had to face the ultimate punishment for his treatment of her parents: facing that horror of his son becoming a Death Eater.  However, before she'd made much headway, nosy seventh year Bertha spotted Barty sneaking off to the greenhouses after dark, and followed him, where she saw the incredibly gossip-worthy sight of the Sinister, Sexy fifth year Florence snogging MP Crouch's 13 year old son!  Corr!!!  Within an hour, the story was all over Hogwarts, and inevitably leaked to Crouch Senior, who, predictably, exploded, forbade his son from ever speaking to her again, and tried to get Florence expelled from Hogwarts.

Little did both Crouch Senior know, his actions played right into Florence's hands.  Barty Junior abandoned his last hope of ever pleasing his father and set to rebellion in earnest.  As his years at Hogwarts slipped by, he progressed from snogging Dark Ladies to torturing first years, hexing Gryffindors, and serving teachers cursed pumpkin juice.  By the time he graduated, it hardly needed the entreaties of his sexy, sinful seductress Florence (now busy seducing the hapless Mr Lestrange into the Dark Side) to send him stampeding into the ranks of the Death Eaters...

Tabouli.


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




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Sat Feb 16 14:12:34 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 14:12:34 -0000
Subject: Catching Cupid's Snitch
In-Reply-To: <002501c1b6ef$060340c0$d71cddcb@price>
Message-ID: <a4lpci+i78e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35327

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> wrote:
> (Hey... maybe it was Florence Lestrange-to-be who planted the 
Prank idea into Sirius' head when Snape had the temerity to get a 
better mark than her in Potions!).  This still doesn't sit with 
Sirius' character, to my mind.  He's a Take Direct Action type.  
He's a Speak Without Thinking Type.  The Prank is just too indirect 
a way of avenging himself on Snape.  No festering by the lake 
cooking up a Prank for Sirius.  I think his spilling the info about 
the Willow is much more likely to be an unpremeditated, hotheaded 
comment made without thought of consequences.
> 

I agree that Sirius is not the type to do murder by premeditated 
prank.  If he really decided that Snape needed killing, he'd rip his 
throat out and have done with it.  But this can easily be reconciled 
with the Cupid's Snitch theory.  You see, Snape, egged on by his 
unrequited feelings for Florence, sharply steps up his efforts to 
snoop on the Marauders.  He figures Florence might warm up to him if 
he "avenges" her by getting her ex and all his Gryffindor friends 
expelled.  In a short time, he goes from being a minor annoyance to 
being a major nuisance.  Sirius, already pissed at Snape 
for "corrupting" Florence, is quickly approaching volcano status.  
One day the two of them bump into each other in a corridor.  A 
shouting match ensues.  Threats, insults, and an occasional hex are 
traded.  And in the middle of it all, Sirius rashly blurts out the 
bit about the Whomping Willow and storms off, obliviously turning a 
corner just in time to avoid a particulary nasty curse that Snape 
has hurled at his retreating back.  

This also explains why Snape is so convinced that the prank was a 
murder attempt.  To his suspicious Slytherin mind, the circumstance 
certainly make it look deliberate.  After all, Sirius certainly had 
the motive, didn't he?  And it's the sort of thing Snape himself 
might've done, if given the means and opportunity.  Of course Black 
did it on purpose, the bastard!

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From maryblue67 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 16 14:35:37 2002
From: maryblue67 at yahoo.com (Maria)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 06:35:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Rumour about Book 5 release date
In-Reply-To: <1013812559.4155.58706.m3@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020216143537.12136.qmail@web11104.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35328

Hello everyone!!

Last night my boyfriend told me something very casually about the
release of Book 5 (he is not a fan, so he doesn't understand the
significance of what he told me)

Anyway, he works for UPS in Saint Louis, in the department of finance
for big company/corporative deliveries (not the personal shipments,
but company ones). He told me that UPS is in charge of the
distribution of the HP books, and that he heard yesterday that the
book is coming out in may. It coincides with what we had heard about
an end-of-school-year release, so it seems quite believable...

Hope it is true!!!

Maria

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com



From tabouli at unite.com.au  Sat Feb 16 15:30:36 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 02:30:36 +1100
Subject: The continuing twisted flight of Cupid's Snitch...
Message-ID: <006e01c1b6ff$1fe06580$d71cddcb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35329

Just had a thought I couldn't resist posting...

Elkins:
> (1)  Florence has a first name, but no last name.  Mrs. Lestrange has 
a last name, but no first name.  Coincidence?  Oh, I think not!

Ahh, yes, Elkins, but remember we have *two* female characters with no first name lurking mysteriously in our midst.  Mrs Lestrange... and Mrs Norris!

Ahaaaaa!

Maybe Bertha was spying on *Filch* snogging Florence *Norris* behind the greenhouses!

Let me see.  OK, how's this... Filch, a marginalised but still reasonably young Squib, finally finds employment at Hogwarts under Dumbledore (who, as we know, falls over himself to look after werewolves and rebellious house-elves, and would surely employed a suffering, oppressed Squib).  It is in Hogwarts that he first encounters the Norrises.  Perhaps Mr Norris is a chilly, brutal school governor, perhaps even an evil DADA teacher!  Let's say the second option.  With Dumbledore's blessing, he brings with him his nervous, brow-beaten Muggle wife Florence, and installs her in the teacher's wing, where she cowers, weeping and wringing, at her loneliness and alienation in wizard society, and the cruelty of her husband.

One day, Filch hears her sobs while scrubbing the windows outside the Norris' quarters, and peeps in to see a sweet but broken woman.  Some chord of empathy is struck within him.  Like her, he understands what it is to be marginalised and powerless in the Wizard world.  Like her, he secretly detests the loathesome Mr Norris and all the smug wizarding world.  They start talking, and a clandestine affair begins  (we seem to be having a lot of these lately, eh?).

Hogwarts is not an easy place to commit adultery.  Not only must they live in fear of Mr Norris, they must also conceal their perilous passion from the other staff, the ghosts, Peeves, and the students.  Finally, they come up with a regular meeting place - behind the greenhouses every evening, when all the staff and students are having dinner and all the ghosts are safely in the castle.  Ingenious, as neither of them usually attend dinner anyway - Filch is riled by the company of a Hall full of functional wizards, most of them children, and Mrs Norris, after being introduced deprecatingly to the school as "Florence" at the start of term, has long been a recluse, as her husband is ashamed of her.

For a few weeks, both of them are happier than they've ever been, so much so, in fact, that the radiant glow on Filch's usual sour face is noticed one evening by the Hogwarts gossipmonger... Bertha Jorkins, who is running late for dinner.  What *could* have happened to him?  Why is the formerly embittered Filch rushing inexplicably out into the grounds after dark, an unprecedented *smile* on his face??  Bubbling with excitement, Bertha decides to skip dinner, follow Filch, and find out what he's up to.  Once she sees the scandal of the century in the making, she giggles back to school and spreads the word.  Mr Norris finds out, and hexes his wife into cat form, a hex only Filch can undo.  Dumbledore dismisses Mr Norris and declares that from now on, the partners of staff must live off-campus, Filch is inconsolable, and sets to studying his 1970s Quikspell hex handbook with a vengeance, desperate to find some counter-hex to bring back his beloved.  In the meantime, he prowls the corridors for evidence of who gave him away, and traces the source to Bertha.  Insane with fury, he summons all the puny powers he possesses and succeeds in hitting her with the hex he remembers from Quikspell Page 1...

Tabouli.


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




From catlady at wicca.net  Sat Feb 16 15:40:50 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 15:40:50 -0000
Subject: Warlock? / TMR Diary / Broadcasting Quidditch / Friction / Voldie's Wand
Message-ID: <a4lui2+10rvt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35330

Rach Robins wrote:

> Does anyone else have any idea what the difference between a
> warlock and wizard might be?

That was the question I sent in to all the JKR on-line chat (for GoF 
publicity tour), but it was never chosen to be answered. I speculate 
that a 'warlock' is a wizarding elected representative (politician) 
(of either gender), and that Perkins had lost his seat in the 
legislature (which I like to imagine being named Witchangemeet), so 
his former colleagues got him a Civil Service job without having to 
pass the test or meet whatever other requirements there are, and also 
they see to it that he can't be fired no matter how bad his 
performance evaluations are, so he doesn't bother to do any of his 
work, so he is no help at all to Arthur.

Another theory suggested was that 'warlock' is a warrior-wizard, 
admired but feared.

It seems to me that neither of these theories explain why Ernie 
Macmillan described his ancestors as nine generations of witches and 
warlocks.  

Devin wrote:

> thinking of a possible scenario of Voldemort giving Lucius the 
> diary sometime in the late '70s/early '80s "just in case"

If Tom Riddle had lived at Malfoy Manor (as a guest of the Malfoys) 
at some time between leaving Hogwarts and losing his body (in 1981), 
that would account for Lucius having 'Voldemort's old school things' 
hidden under his drawing room floor.

Grey Wolf wrote:

> since I doubt very many people would follow their quidditch teams
> all over britain to follow the league.

Why not, considering that the adults can Apparate and the children
can Portkey or Floo? Actually, I have a question about the children 
being away at boarding school for most of the year, and presumably 
therefore unable to go watch professional Quidditch matches: 
shouldn't they be able to listen to the matches on Wizarding Wireless 
Network (Muggles STILL listen to baseball on the radio, and did so 
much more before Television was invented)? But surely, if there are 
WWM sets at Hogwarts, the Gryffindor team would listen to pro matches 
together, and then there wouldn't be that bit in GoF about Harry 
never having listened to WWN?

Eric wrote:

> It occurs to me that a lot of the "friction" we see between 
> Professors Snape and McGonagall 

What friction? It seems to me that they get along, not like 
Snape/Lockhart or McGonagall/Trelawney.

Mariah Isabel wrote:

> old Peter keeps [Voldemort's] wand,

I agree.







From michelleapostolides at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Feb 16 15:45:43 2002
From: michelleapostolides at yahoo.co.uk (Michelle Apostolides)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 15:45:43 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Rumour about Book 5 release date
References: <20020216143537.12136.qmail@web11104.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000701c1b700$fedc0680$7657893e@Michelle>

No: HPFGUIDX 35331

 He told me that UPS is in charge of the
distribution of the HP books, and that he heard yesterday that the
book is coming out in may. It coincides with what we had heard about
an end-of-school-year release, so it seems quite believable...

The only flaw with that would be that in the UK,  schools don't finish until the middle or end of July, so I am pretty sure that if that is what is planned, then I doubt that Bloomsbury would permit the book to be released in the US before the UK. 

Michelle


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




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Feb 16 15:51:38 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 15:51:38 -0000
Subject: Catching Cupid's Snitch
In-Reply-To: <002501c1b6ef$060340c0$d71cddcb@price>
Message-ID: <a4lv6a+pj3j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35332

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> wrote:


> In the same way that breaking into Hogwarts and heading 
straight for the boys' dorm on Hallowe'en was his impulsive 
most direct way of getting to Wormtail... forgot about the portrait, 
didn't he?  (was it there when he was at Hogwarts?)  What did he 
do then?  Tried to slash the portrait and keep on going!  He only 
thought of getting hold of the password later, didn't he?  Surely if 
he'd been more of a schemer, more of a brooder he'd've found 
out about the portrait and taken it into account, thinking up a plan.  
<

The portrait should have been there in Sirius' day, because both  
Molly and Bill recall it, neatly sandwiching the Marauders Era.

GoF ch 31. 
"And the Fat Lady?" said Bill.
"She was here in my time," said Mrs. Weasley. "She gave me 
such a telling off when I got back to the dormitory at four in the 
morning--"

Sirius doesn't seem the type to seek vengeance over a lost love. 
His focus seems to be more on avenging wrongs done to his 
friends than to himself. Even though he has good reason to hate 
Barty Sr., he never talks about trying to get even with him. I also 
tend to see the Prank as another example of TVREMOTES 
(Tunnel Vision Restricts Empathy Mobilizing Overreacting 
Emotional Sirius).

 The sad thing is that, as Elkins' real life horror story reminds us, 
teenagers just don't need to have elaborate justifications for 
hateful behavior. The way I see it, Sirius picks on Snape for no 
reason other than teenage bullying. Snape is driven to spit-flying 
rage, motivating more such behavior from Sirius.  Snape starts 
spying on Sirius and his friends, hoping to get them into trouble. 
Snape finds out about Remus and the willow and (finally!) taunts 
Sirius with the discovery. Sirius, with typical TVREMOTES lack of 
forethought, thinks "Hah! He thinks he knows about the willow? 
I'll tell him how to get inside. That'll serve him right for spying on 
my friends!" and does. Sirius chuckles to himself all afternoon, 
and doesn't tell his friends what's so funny until the moon is on 
the verge of rising. James, looking out the window from 
Gryffindor Tower, sees the moon come up, grabs his broomstick 
and...but that would be fan fic. Sorry, got carried away.

Sirius does have current reasons to loathe Snape, since Snape 
outed his pal Lupin and threatened him with the Dementors. But 
he doesn't mention these to Harry, because they're talking about 
school days in that conversation.


Pippin
But Florence...honestly, what kind of name is that for a Death 
Eater?




From cassandraclaire at mail.com  Sat Feb 16 16:27:41 2002
From: cassandraclaire at mail.com (cassandraclaire at mail.com)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:27:41 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] How do we know Crouch, jr's age? (Was: Re: Avery, Voldemort's Wand, Timeline
In-Reply-To: 28
Message-ID: <16600678.1510972626@imcingular.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35333

Actually, we don't know that he was taken to Azkaan in 81. As the Potters were killed within hours of the start of November, it's more likely that the hearing was in 82. I would argue that his birthday could've been any time in 61 or 62 or even as late as 63. But most likely 62.

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: "harpdreamer" <pbnesbit at msn.com>
Subject: [HPforGrownups] How do we know Crouch, jr's age? (Was: Re: Avery, Voldemort's Wand, Timeline
Real-To:  "harpdreamer" <pbnesbit at msn.com>

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> >
> Eileen wrote (about Crouch's 1962 birthday):
>
> > Where does the lexicon get the birthday? Is it just an assumption
> from
> > a 1981 date?
> >
>
> I have no clue.  All I know is that Steve says it, so it is
true.  :-)
> I suspect it is extrapolated from something.  It probably isn't far
> off, though.
>
>

Sirius says in GoF that Crouch jr was 19 when he was taken to Azkaban
in 1981.  19 from 1981 is 1962.


Peace & Plenty,

Parker



________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin Files!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/

Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!

Is your message...
An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements.
Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups.
None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com

Unsubscribing? Email hpforgrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
____________________________________________________________

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





From editor at texas.net  Sat Feb 16 16:52:23 2002
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:52:23 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Snape knew
References: <a4k9vc+hn4j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00ce01c1b70a$60a88f60$707c63d1@texas.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35334

I said
> > > So before any of you start ragging on Snape again, that he heard
> the truth and just chose to ignore it, look and see what it can be said
with
> certainty that Snape really did hear. He was either not yet in the room,
or
> out cold, for the revelations that would have allowed him to entertain any
> of what *we* know is the truth.

Mercia responded:
>
> OK so us relative newbies miss the odd post or several thousand in
> 33000. You did certainly deal very comprehensively with the sequence
> of events in the shrieking Shack and I am sorry if I seemed to be
> rehashing old ground.

My response:

Jeez. That wasn't what I meant; there was no criticism implied at all, and
the vile disease *Severus viputeratus* is not confined to newbies.

Over my moons on this list, though, I *have* seen that whenever the
Shrieking Shack scene comes up, inevitably posts pop up saying how Snape is
mean, nasty, awful, beyond redemption, etc., because of what he heard and
then ignored. Often the poster supports their position with a misremembered
bit of the chapter. I was just tryin' to head the varmints off at the pass.

It seems to me that unless you think Snape would stand outside the door and
listen for a time before going in (which I think does not fit with either
his character or the situation) or would feign unconsciousness after the
attack (which is ridiculous), it is clear from going through the chapter
carefully that he misses most of the important revelations.

> However it is very rare to come up with genuinely new stuff.

True, but I've seen it done; after almost a year and a half of this list,
I've still seen new takes on things come across the board. Even, recently,
on one of my favorite and much-analyzed scenes, Snape and Lupin in his
office, on the map.

> And since this group has been going for some years,
> clearly those of us new to it will pick up old threads again not
> realising they have already been well unravelled.

We know. Lots of the older members don't post much because we're sitting
back and enjoying how *you* untie the knots. It was fun for us to debate
these things, and we still join in sometimes; why should we rain on *your*
fun? As I said, I was just trying to obviate some of the needless Snape
bashing, which makes me have to bestir myself and type. Sigh.

> > Seriously I appreciate the analysis and I didn't mean to imply or
> suggest that Snape knew everything that was said.

Others often come away with the impression that he did. Really. Many people
get the idea that he knew it all and still was trying to get Sirius Kissed
or the like; their view of Snape is colored by this as more nasty than he is
(which is nasty enough), so I thought reposting it might be of use.

> It just seemed that he
> might have heard enough to give him pause for thought, if he had
> been capable of thinking rationally at that point.

Ah, but that complete lack of control was so uncharacteristic and thus so
tantalizing! Why then? Why them? Was it the people involved, the situation,
the parallels, the past....? Inquiring minds....

Also, given that he is reasonably sure he *does* know the facts--as
everyone, including Dumbledore, has interpreted them to that moment--it is
entirely possible that he *did* take in what was said and the small fraction
he heard seemed to him to substantiate those facts.

> And I accept that
> he was so convinced both of Sirius' guilt and Lupin's collusion that
> he wasn't really open to other perspectives. Why though did he stay
> invisible for at least 10 minutes worth of conversation? Why not
> reveal himself as soon as he was in the room or as soon as he had
> weighed up the situation? He listened in for quite a while.

Good question. I think he has a flair for the dramatic, and chose his
entrance. I haven't read the chapter with an eye for where everyone was
standing, but he might have waited until he had an advantage strategically.
He could choose his time, since he was in a position of strength; he was
unseen, could choose where to stand, could listen until he felt satisfied of
his interpretation, could make sure the kids were not in immediate danger,
etc. I'll have to reread this to see if there seems to be any reason why he
did pick that particular moment. He knew he couldn't listen for long or he'd
be dealing with a werewolf. Hmmm.

This chapter is masterfully constructed in the timing of everything, when
you look carefully at it; I can't imagine something as vital as when Snape
de-cloaked and tried to take charge would be random.

 --Amanda, who is going to start including a standard "I am NOT criticising
your post or your newness on the list, honest, I just thought you might like
to know this" disclaimer in all her posts




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Sat Feb 16 18:29:45 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 18:29:45 -0000
Subject: What Snape knew
In-Reply-To: <00ce01c1b70a$60a88f60$707c63d1@texas.net>
Message-ID: <a4m8ep+a2ia@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35335

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda" <editor at t...> wrote:
> It seems to me that unless you think Snape would stand outside the 
door and
> listen for a time before going in (which I think does not fit with 
either
> his character or the situation) or would feign unconsciousness 
after the
> attack (which is ridiculous), it is clear from going through the 
chapter
> carefully that he misses most of the important revelations.

<snip>

> This chapter is masterfully constructed in the timing of 
everything, when
> you look carefully at it; I can't imagine something as vital as 
when Snape
> de-cloaked and tried to take charge would be random.

So true.  Every time I re-read this chapter (and the time-turner 
events that followed it), I'm always amazed at how tightly 
structured it is -- so many characters, all with their own agendas, 
all possessing only a part of the complete story, coming together in 
precisely the right way to make the events come out as they do, and 
it never feels fake or forced.  JKR may not be the world's greatest 
prose stylist, but damn, can she tell a story or what?

I also think it's significant that she took so much pains to arrange 
the timing so that Snape only witnesses such a small subset of the 
important revelations, so that all his actions end up being 
motivated by a sincere belief in Sirius' guilt.  I think if Snape 
had been presented at the time with convincing evidence of Sirius' 
innocence (such as the actual sight of Peter in his human form, for 
example), he would've sucked it up and dealt with it.  In fact, it 
seems that he did suck it up and deal with it sometime before he re-
encountered Sirius in GoF.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From theennead at attbi.com  Sat Feb 16 19:43:19 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 19:43:19 -0000
Subject: Pranks & Pranksters, Bullies, and Guilt By Association
In-Reply-To: <004e01c1b227$0afe6f40$2324ddcb@price>
Message-ID: <a4mcon+q4vd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35336

I said:

> *We* know that there is really nothing in the least bit amusing or 
> good-natured about the practical joke, that far to the contrary, it 
> is just one of the many means by which the socially popular assert 
> their dominance over their less charismatic peers.

Tabouli wrote:

> I agree wholeheartedly with the overall sentiments of this, but 
> also I think practical jokes aren't always that. It depends on 
> their content and style of execution. 

Well, of course it does.  But that was a *rant,* you see, and one 
can't ameliorate or qualify in the midst of a rant.  It's...well, 
it's just not done.

I think that practical joking is a lot like 'teasing,' actually.  It 
*is* often used as a means of asserting dominance through ridicule.  
It is also sometimes used to share humor and express affection.  The 
problem with both teasing and practical joking, of course, is that it 
is horribly easy to get it *wrong,* and so to offend where you meant 
to do no such thing.  When that happens, then the only decent thing 
to do, IMO, is to humbly apologize. Unfortunately, people tend to get 
defensive instead, which is when you get "can't you take a joke?" 
and "must you always be so sensitive?" and similar remarks which do 
absolutely nothing for anyone's good humor.

(And people do vary a great deal in their sensitivity to teasing, not 
always for explicable reasons.  My husband, for example, cannot bear 
to be teased, not at all, not even lightly, not a bit of it.  If you 
know him -- and if you know what's good for you -- then you do not 
tease him.  I, on the other hand, can tolerate a good deal of 
teasing, which is strange, really, because I was mercilessly and 
cruelly taunted by evil small people all through my childhood, while 
he was never teased in anything but good-humor by very loving family 
members.  <shrug>  So go figure.  I don't understand it either, but 
there it is.)

Getting back to canon, I think that the twins' behavior is 
interesting for the extent to which it does show a very wide range of 
teasing/joking behavior, from the mild and affectionate to the 
downright bullying.  The twins are not very sensitive, and they often 
get it "wrong."  And they can sometimes be malicious, sometimes 
nastily so -- although we've never seen them indulge in the sort of 
wholly malicious and unceasing harrassment that I (and Tabouli as 
well, it would seem) have experienced first-hand.

Their attempts to cheer Ginny up in CoS by jumping out at her from 
behind pillars and the like, for example, strikes me as quite clearly 
a case of simply "getting it wrong."  There's no intended malice 
there that I can see -- I think that they really were trying to cheer 
her up -- but she's headed for a nervous breakdown, and they're just 
too insensitive to notice the effect their behavior is having on 
her.  When it is pointed out to them, they do stop.

Their constant attacks on Percy, though...well, there's malice 
there.  There's definitely malice there, and more than a shade of 
harrassment, as well.  But it's nice that even within their treatment 
of Percy, we see a wide range.  When they manhandle him into his 
Weasley jumper and insist that he spend Christmas with them because 
they're "family," their behavior is certainly bullying, and I'm 
sure that it was very annoying to Percy -- but I'm equally sure that 
it made him feel loved.  Unlike, say, their unceasing attacks on his 
badges, which I don't think made him feel in the least bit 
appreciated or valued.

But fictional characters often suffer from guilt by association.  If 
they remind us of people we have known in real life, then we tend to 
draw certain assumptions about their behavior. (We just saw a bit of 
this happening on the Ginny thread, I think.)  And for what it's 
worth, I don't think that that's at all a "wrong" way to read 
fiction.  It's inevitable: fiction *depends* on the reader's habit of 
forming gestalt impressions of character; that's a large part of how 
it works.  It's really only when you run into the highly 
idiosyncratic readings that perhaps it starts making sense to wonder 
whether you might have "misread" the text -- and even then, I think 
that "misreading" is a misnomer.  So long as the characters and their 
interactions and their motivations continue to make *sense* to the 
reader, so long as the work still carries the reader along 
emotionally and logically, then as far as I'm concerned, the question 
of authorial intent is moot.  It's only when things stop making sense 
that "misreading" is problematic.

As for the twins, I grew up down the street from a pair of 
pathological pranksters, quite a few years older than me, who *were* 
malicious (to *me*, at any rate) and who lacked chivalry towards the 
smaller and the younger (when it came to *me*, at any rate).  But 
they were also very popular, and extremely kind and supportive of 
their younger brother and his friends and other younger children whom 
they liked, and they did a lot of charity work mentoring younger 
children as well, so everyone thought they were these all-round great 
guys.  No harm in 'em.  Good-hearted.  They had this *rep* -- as 
chivalrous and kind-hearted and protective to the small and the weak 
and all of that.  No one ever seemed to notice that they...well, that 
they just plain *weren't.*

So yes, my reading of the twins may well be far more personal than 
canonical, as may be my ugly suspicion that they can be mean as all 
get-out when it comes to, say, the Slytherins.  But the text has 
borne me out so far -- I still say that the Hissing of Malcolm 
Baddock was a DEAD GIVEAWAY, they showed their true natures there, 
all right, oh yes, indeedy -- and so my admittedly-biased reading is 
not "problematic."  It isn't contradicted by anything in the text.  
It can therefore remain a satisfying reading for me without having to 
be "revised."


Tabouli was approaching the Snape vs. Sirius disagreements along 
these lines, I think, when she wrote about her own experiences with 
Victimizers Who Never Accept That They've Done Wrong and Ex-Victims 
Turned Bully.  And I think that she was quite right in suggesting 
that people's personal experiences with these types have informed 
that on-going debate.

She wrote:

> I have met quite a few ex-charismatic-victimisers who, like Sirius, 
> are well into adulthood and show no signs whatsoever of remorse. 
> Indeed, they engage in almost exactly the same behaviour as Sirius -
> a bit of a smug, callous snicker and a "God, but they were just so 
> revolting and pathetic, they were just asking for it!" 

<shudder>

I remember a year or two ago finding myself in a discussion at work 
with a co-worker, a woman I'd always got along with quite well, about 
the film "Welcome To the Dollhouse" (if you've never seen it, 
Tabouli, you might want to be warned: it just might make you feel 
physically ill.  It did me.)  The discussion was going great, no 
problems, we had both liked the movie a good deal, and then suddenly 
she said something along the lines of: "God, you know, I felt so bad 
for that poor girl, but at the same time, she was just *asking* for 
it, wasn't she?  The way she dressed, and the way she acted?  She 
must have known better.  I mean, we always used to just *torture* 
people like that when I was in school, and I can't really say that I 
blame all the other kids for treating her that way.  She was *so* 
letting herself in for it."  

Cheerfully, she said this.  Cheerfully, and not without a certain 
hint of smug *nostalgia.*

And I just couldn't respond somehow.  My throat felt very tight, and 
I could feel the blood draining from my face, and...well, I simply 
wanted to be elsewhere.  Anywhere elsewhere.  I would like to be able 
to claim that, like Tabouli, I tried to engage this woman on the 
issue.  But I didn't.  I absented myself from the conversation at the 
next decent opportunity.  And I can't really say that I've ever felt 
quite the same about her since.

I think that a lot of people here have met those types, and that it 
accounts for a great deal of the anti-Sirius sentiment we see here on 
the list.  I myself, for example, tend to share Judy Serenity's gut 
feelings about Sirius, while also acknowledging all of the pro-
Sirist's arguments against them as perfectly canonically sound.  No, 
there's no canonical evidence that the guy ever harrassed or teased
less popular students.  No, there's no canonical evidence that he 
ever even did a thing to Snape, other than that one (admittedly 
potentially lethal) "prank."  No, there's no real canonical evidence 
that he is the sort of person who cares only for the people he has 
designated as "his people," and not so much for anyone outside of 
that magic circle.

But he gives many people the *impression* of being that sort of 
person, and impressions are important -- we form our opinions of 
fictional characters largely on a gestalt basis anyhow -- so I think 
that "he gives the impression of being this sort of person, and I 
just don't like people like that" *is* a valid response to the 
canon.  It's a perfectly legitimate, and indeed, unavoidable aspect 
of ones reading of the text.

As for the Ex-Victims Turned Bully...

(Tabouli, again):

> However, I have also observed another subset of people who impress 
> me almost as little... the victim-turned-bully. 

<shifts uncomfortably in seat>

Well...yeah.  I went through a stage of this myself -- although not 
with any racial agenda attached, thank God.  As a teenager, I got 
pretty mean, in both senses of that word: cruel and petty.  I'm not 
in the least bit proud of that.  It's shameful.

But interestingly, the logic one uses to rationalize such behavior is 
much the same.  Rather than 'they were so pathetic, they deserved it, 
they should just get over it already,' you get into 'oh, people like 
that are so insensitive that they can't possibly really be hurt 
anyway, all they're really upset about is that they just aren't 
*winning* for once in their lives, and maybe they should get used to 
that and...well, and get over it already.'

You don't think of it as bullying -- although that's precisely what 
it is. 

It's equally despicable behavior, of course.  And for what it's 
worth, I did grow out of it.

In fiction, naturally, I tend to enjoy ex-victims-turned-bully.  I 
can identify with them, although it's an uncomfortable sort of 
identification.  In real life, though, I just can't bear them.  They 
upset and anger me beyond all reason: I desperately want them to come 
to the same conclusions about their rotten behavior that I eventually 
did, and when they won't, or can't, then I become very distressed.  
And like Tabouli, I've had representatives of the type crushing on me 
(more than one, actually, which is sort of disturbing in its own 
right -- as if our shared characteristics are some kind of pheromone, 
you know -- as if they could *smell* it on me), but fortunately 
never reaching quite the scary stalker level that Tabouli described.  
(That sounds frightening, Tabouli -- you have my sympathies.)

> In fiction, as in Sirius (My Cocky Charisma) and Snape (Mr Victim 
> turned Bully), I'm quite happy to accept this sort of thing as an 
> interesting portrayal of things I've observed myself in real life.
> In reality, however, I brew with disapproval...

Indeed.  But then, the people I would disapprove of most strongly in 
real life generally *do* make for interesting characters...


-- Elkins




From theennead at attbi.com  Sat Feb 16 20:16:48 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 20:16:48 -0000
Subject: An old-fashioned discussion
In-Reply-To: <a4imhb+e9ag@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4meng+j9s3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35337

Booleanfox:

> I would be interested to know what everybody's favourite non-
> wizarding character is, and why?

Well, were it not for the fact that I *know* that Mrs. Norris
isn't really a cat, I'd have to go for Mrs. Norris.  

Why?  Because I love cats, and like so many other cat lovers,
I'm particularly partial to the ones who glare balefully and 
skulk about sneakily and give every impression of malicious 
intent.  That's what cats are *for.*  (Well...that and stepping 
all over the keyboard while you're trying to post -- Get *off,* 
Radclyffe!)  Also, I really like her eyes.  Her eyes are really
what won my heart.

But since Mrs. Norris may indeed be a wizarding character, then
I guess I'll cast my vote for Crookshanks.


-- Elkins




From pollux46 at hotmail.com  Sat Feb 16 20:38:28 2002
From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 20:38:28 -0000
Subject: An old-fashioned discussion
In-Reply-To: <a4imhb+e9ag@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4mg04+uaj2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35338

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "booleanfox" <j.balfour at l...> wrote:
> I would be interested to know what everybody's favourite non-
> wizarding character is, and why?
> 
> For the record, mine is Dobby, which I believe will be an unpopular 
> choice, but I think he's very funny, very loyal to Harry and his 
> friends and of course is a bit of a dobber!
> 
> Jules


That's easy! No competition! No competition whatsoever! My favourite 
non-wizard character is indubitably Firenze.


I've always had a soft spot of centaurs. Well... I don't particularly 
like them the way they're portrayed in Greek mythology: Nasty, mean, 
maiden-napping bastards! But they are easily my favourite creatures 
in the Chronicles of Narnia. There's something wise about them and 
knowledgeable and proud and ?especially?* noble*. When I first read 
PS and got to the Forbidden Forest chapter and Ronan I can clearly 
remember thinking "Wow, there's centaurs too! This book isn't just 
good, it's downright fantastic!" 


Of course Bane doesn't get too many popularity points from me... His 
attitude towards star?reading is far too Divinationey for my tastes! 
And Ronan's pretty useless too. But Firenze... he knows how to read 
the stars -?which I see as the centaurs own branch of magic and not 
Astrology in the Trelawney sense -- but he also knows that what he 
reads has to but enacted by people down on Earth, he's not too 
arrogant to accept that he might be mistaken and in any case will 
fight for what he thinks is right no matter what the stars say.


By the way that prediction has always worried me. It's always been in 
my mind the strongest piece of evidence that our poor Harry isn't 
going to make it. <Charis lets out bawl of absolute misery> What if 
Bane did get it right after all and just miscalculated with the 
timing?


I like Crookshanks as well but I can't really get into a character 
that doesn't say anything. So one more point in favour of the 
centaurs is... they can speak! And sometimes not even in third person 
singular either! It's not that I dislike Dobby... but if I was to 
meet him in real life (errr, so to speak
) I suspect he'd get on my 
nerves. Big time.


Charis Julia, who is now dreaming about riding into the sunset * on* 
the man of her dreams! <g>





From boggles at earthlink.net  Sat Feb 16 20:48:37 2002
From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 14:48:37 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, yet again!
In-Reply-To: <a4b5v1+a2ks@eGroups.com>
References: <a4b5v1+a2ks@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <f05010407b894742f7b41@[199.174.15.208]>

No: HPFGUIDX 35339

Sorry, lost the original attribution:

>"I have sat here wondering all this time about the real partners of
>these women that are so fond of Snape..."

Um, I met my Spouse at a vampire live-action role-playing game.

<awkward pause>

But, he wasn't playing the Byronic anti-hero type - more of the goofy 
eccentric.  He was wearing a black trenchcoat, but he also had a 
shapeless fedora and a duck-head cane.  More a very young Dumbledore 
than a Snape.

<long pause>

*meekly* It was his best friend, who was also in the game, and who I 
have had a long-standing minor crush on, who was playing the Byronic 
anti-hero.  And had shoulder-length black hair.  And looks a little 
like Alan Rickman.  And works much better with ideas and things than 
people.

<looong pause>

Uh, canon, canon, before this drifts off-topic:

I suggested a while back that Snape's comment to the Griffindor DADA 
class in PoA - "I never thought I'd meet a third-year class who 
wouldn't recognize a werewolf when they saw one" - suggests a measure 
of self-loathing, since obviously _he_ didn't recognize one when he 
saw one, and the Prank happenned well after their third year.  No one 
commented on this, at the time.  Is there another connotation to the 
comment that I'm missing?

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



From Adi99 at netvision.net.il  Sat Feb 16 20:49:09 2002
From: Adi99 at netvision.net.il (adi82t)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 20:49:09 -0000
Subject: Was someone splinched himself on Privet Drive?
Message-ID: <a4mgk5+105og@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35340

I believe that sometime in the past, probably when harry was a baby, 
someone splinched himself on Privet Drive.
In book 4, Chapter 6, when Arthur Weasley tells harry the meaning of 
the word "splinch", Harry imagines "a pair of legs and an eyeball 
lying abandoned on the pavement of Privet Drive".
It's a natural thing to imagine how splinching looks like, but I 
think that harry wasn't just imaging. I strongly believe that he had 
a vision of something he had seen years ago. The same way he had a 
dream about flying motorcycle.
The key to my speculation is the fact that Harry imagines the 
splinching taking place on privet drive. When the average man 
imagines splinchimg, he doesn't imagine it in a certain place. The 
place has no meaning. It may have something to do with Dumbledore's 
protections of privet drive. Maybe one of the protections makes no 
one capable of Apparatine on privet drive, and splinching is the 
punishment to the one who tries.
The eyeball that Harry imagines is also a suspicious thing. When I 
read that at the first time, I instantly thought about muddy. Maybe 
he was the one who splinche himself?





From tanie_05 at hotmail.com  Sat Feb 16 20:53:02 2002
From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 20:53:02 -0000
Subject: Avery, Voldemort's Wand, Timeline (WAS Avery and Ambushes)
In-Reply-To: <a4kds1+k7qt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4mgre+7o0s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35341

Hi,

mariahisabel wrote:
> Now Pettigrew was the Potter's secret keeper and though Im now 
expert 
> on the Fidelius charm Im guessing that in order for Voldemort to 
> reach the Potters the secret keeper had to not only tell the 
location 
> of the protected people but accompany the searcher as well. 

Plausible enough. I can believe that. I never thought about it. Good 
job. 

> After 
> Voldie dispatches of the Potters (I wont go as far as to speculate 
> how he did it, or who did it, or who died first, Im a newbie 
afterall)

FYI, it was James, then Lily, then it would have been Harry, but we 
all know what happened instead, so we're not even gonna go there.

> old Peter keeps the wand, either as a way to try and show voldemort 
> his loyalty later on ("but my Lord, I kept your wand faithfully 
while 
> awaiting your return") or for sonme other reason.  Of course then 
> Peter has no problem of delivering the wand to V. and V. still has 
> his old wand.

Now here's where you messed up. You must remember that Peter 
transformed himself into a rat the day after the Potters were killed 
when Sirius went to confront him. He couldn't have possibly kept it. 
If it was that, then why didn't he have his own? Now a possibilty is 
that Peter hid it in some unknown place, maybe hoping Voldemort would 
rise again. I'd probably buy that though. Oh well. Maybe we'll never 
know.

-Kyrstyne




From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com  Sat Feb 16 21:03:23 2002
From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 16:03:23 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, yet again!
Message-ID: <36.2334596a.29a0231b@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35342

In a message dated 2/16/2002 3:54:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
boggles at earthlink.net writes:


> I suggested a while back that Snape's comment to the Griffindor DADA 
> class in PoA - "I never thought I'd meet a third-year class who 
> wouldn't recognize a werewolf when they saw one" - suggests a measure 
> of self-loathing, since obviously _he_ didn't recognize one when he 
> saw one, and the Prank happenned well after their third year.  No one 
> commented on this, at the time.  Is there another connotation to the 
> comment that I'm missing?

I think he might've meant an actual werewolf in his/her transformed form, not 
a werewolf in human form. Remember, he's asking if they can distinguish a 
werewolf from a real wolf? 

~Cassie~ 


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




From k_wayment at hotmail.com  Sat Feb 16 21:38:36 2002
From: k_wayment at hotmail.com (Kyli Wayment)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 21:38:36 
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore (Was:Could the Stone have been Not Destroyed?)
Message-ID: <F25X46syVqFbCtqRmaY000141ba@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35343


Ron Yu wrote:

[snip]
>Besides the gleam in [Dumbledore's]
>eye has somebody spotted something else against his
>un-evilness?

Does the fact that Dumbledore keeps letting Harry and co. do illegal and 
dangerous things make anybody else suspicious? I mean, why would Dumbledore 
even _let_ HRH go down to get the stone? What if Dumbledore _is_ evil and he 
keeps letting Harry do all that stuff because he wants Harry to get hurt, 
but then he takes the credit for "making Harry stronger" when it's given to 
him.
  Then again, Dumbledore could really be trying to make HRH stronger because 
they are the ones Voldie is after.
  But what if...?
  Ideas? Thoughts? Comments?
  ~Kyli

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




From andrew_macian at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 16 22:18:59 2002
From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 14:18:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore (Was:Could the Stone have been Not Destroyed?)
In-Reply-To: <F25X46syVqFbCtqRmaY000141ba@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20020216221859.614.qmail@web9503.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35344

Greetings from Andrew!


--- Kyli Wayment <k_wayment at hotmail.com> wrote:
{snip}

> 
> Does the fact that Dumbledore keeps letting Harry
> and co. do illegal and 
> dangerous things make anybody else suspicious? I
> mean, why would Dumbledore 
> even _let_ HRH go down to get the stone?
{snip}

Ermm...'let'?  IIRC, this particular escapade (as a
model for the rest) was done against the will of Prof
D.  After all, where in canon does it state the he
*specifically*  *permitted* this?

Think it over.  Most of what HRH do is against school
regs and what might well be considered common sense.
And Occam's Razor fits in here, too; most of this
speculation has a rather desperate tone to it, IMO.  

Cheers,

Drieux

=====
ICQ # 76184391

'Each game of chess means there's one less
      Variation left to be played;
 Each day got through means one or two less
      Mistakes remain to be made.'
      --'Chess' by Sir Tim Rice

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com



From theennead at attbi.com  Sat Feb 16 22:52:52 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 22:52:52 -0000
Subject: Would Lucius have gone on a Voldy hunt?
In-Reply-To: <a4ggpf+bqbl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4mns4+115f2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35345

Tabouli wrote:

> Then again, would Lucius want to rule the world? (What do people 
> think?) I wonder if Lucius has had life too easy to build up the 
> sort of vicious, ruthless ambition he'd need to drive him to such 
> lengths. 

It sort of begs the question of why he cast his lot in with Voldemort 
the first time around, doesn't it?  Presumably he's always had life 
easy.

> Tom Riddle was fuelled by hatred of his Muggle father and 
> orphanage; what would fuel Lucius? A disdain for Mudbloods? Ha.

A sense of wounded entitlement?  In spite of the fact that he has 
wealth and power and prestige and respect, he does seem to feel that 
he still isn't quite getting all that he is *owed.*  Wizarding blood 
is counting for less everywhere, you know, and although the Malfoy 
name still commands *some* respect...  And all that.

<Elkins contemplates a rant about a certain terribly privileged class 
of people who in her experience do far too much whining about their 
own loss of entitlement, but then rejects it as unduly political and 
*far* too inflammatory>

Also, Lucius Malfoy would seem to be fairly vicious by nature.

But is all that sufficient to make him want to *rule* the world, 
rather than merely support someone who might give him what he wants?

I don't think so.  Ruling the world is an awful lot of *work,* and 
you'd probably be too busy doing it to enjoy the privileges and 
entitlements that it would afford you.

So no.  I don't think that Lucius would want to rule the world at 
all, really.  If he does try to seize the reins of power away from 
Voldemort, I think it will be more an act of self-preservation than a 
reflection of any real desire to hold that sort of power.


Uncmark wrote:

> [He gave Ginny the diary, so...] This begs the question: why does 
> he seem to have pretty cold feet about the whole idea of Voldemort 
> coming back at any other time?

Well, because Voldemort is a nutter.  And not only is he a nutter, 
but he wasn't even a terribly *effective* nutter the last time 
around.  As far as I can tell, members of Lucius Malfoy's social 
class are actually in worse shape now than they were before 
Voldemort's bid for power.  And none of the Death Eaters got eternal 
life, either.  In fact, a lot of them got killed.

I think that if I'd been promised power, and the opportunity to 
indulge myself in viciousness, and the restoration of all of my 
ancient class privileges, and eternal life on *top* of all of that, 
and then got what Lucius Malfoy and all of the other Death Eaters got 
out of the whole deal, I wouldn't be at all pleased to see Voldemort 
back again either.

Sixteen-year-old ghost-diary Tom Riddle, though, is a different 
matter.  Even assuming that Lucius knew precisely what the diary 
would do (which I don't think that he did at all), a ghostly teenaged 
Riddle wandering around might not be such a bad thing.  Maybe he 
could prove useful.  At any rate, he's not at all the same as red-eye-
glowing, mad-as-a-hatter, didn't-give-us-squat-the-last-time-around, 
minion-abusing Snake-faced Evil Death Lord guy.


Jo Ellen wrote:

> I think Lucius, since he collects articles related to the dark arts
> and keeps them hidden under his dining room in a secret room, just 
> happened to come across the TR diary.

I don't think that I agree.  At the end of CoS, Dumbledore warns him 
against handing out any more of Riddle's old school things, which 
would seem to imply that Lucius didn't just come across the diary by 
chance.

Like Ancarette, I strongly suspect that the Malfoys are the 
mysterious owners of the Riddle estate.  But I'm certainly hoping 
that there's a much more involved backstory than only *that* to 
account for the Malfoys' possession of a bunch of Riddle's strange 
old things.

Oh, I so *desperately* want a peek beneath that drawing room floor!


Eileen wrote:

> Lucius didn't want Voldemort back at all, imho. After all, how 
> would Voldemort look at a party? 

Death of the party.  No question.  His presence would cast an absolute
*pall* over the proceedings: no one would speak, the food and drink 
would go completely untouched...  It would be an utter social 
disaster.

> Lucius was living the good life, chumming it up with Fudge,
> donating to worthy causes, and suddenly, Voldie's come back, and 
> wants to go all Snidely Whiplash. I'm looking to Lucius to betray 
> Voldie when the time comes, and can't see why Voldemort isn't 
> expecting it. Much as I hated Voldemort, I'm secretly hoping that 
> the plan backfires on Lucius. 

Yes.  It's curious that, isn't it?  Why *is* the notion of Lucius 
Malfoy being embarrassed or discomfited or thwarted or just plain 
terrorized so very appealing, even to those of us who don't 
ordinarily go in much for that sort of thing?  He's really no worse 
than many of the other venal characters in the books.  So why is it 
that the idea of plans backfiring on Lucius in particular should be 
so very...appetizing?

I certainly hope that it's not a matter of class-envy.  Because that 
would be just plain *embarrassing.*


-- Elkins




From k_wayment at hotmail.com  Sat Feb 16 23:19:30 2002
From: k_wayment at hotmail.com (Kyli Wayment)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 23:19:30 
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore (Was:Could the Stone have been Not Destroyed?)
Message-ID: <F186TRhlQnNE6f17ro4000012a7@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35346


>>I
>>mean, why would Dumbledore
>>even _let_ HRH go down to get the stone?

Andrew wrote:

>Ermm...'let'?  IIRC, this particular escapade was done against the >will of 
>Prof
>D.  After all, where in canon does it state the he
>*specifically*  *permitted* this?

I agree that Prof D didn't *specifally* *permit* that Harry go after the 
Stone, but in canon, it says (Ch. 17 SS/PS, page 302 US edition) "...I think 
he sort of wanted to give me a chance....I reckon he had a pretty good idea 
that were going to try, and instead of stopping us, he just taught us enough 
to help. I don't think it was an accident that he let me find out how the 
mirror worked....."
  So, that may mean exactly what comes to the brain, but, if yout hink about 
it, it kind of sounds like Dumbledore *knew* the Stone would be gone after 
by Voldemort, so he practically told Harry that he could get it.
  I don't know.... This is just a thought that has been on my mind for a 
while, and I could be completely wrong about Dumbledore, not that I'm 
judging, but, like I said, that thought has been on my mind lately. It could 
go either way.
  Comments? Thoughts? Ideas?
  ~Kyli

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




From Cornet83 at aol.com  Sat Feb 16 22:26:16 2002
From: Cornet83 at aol.com (mariahisabel)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 22:26:16 -0000
Subject: Avery, Voldemort's Wand, Timeline (WAS Avery and Ambushes)
In-Reply-To: <a4mgre+7o0s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4mma8+jk4o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35347


in a previous post, I wrote

> > old Peter keeps the wand, either as a way to try and show 
voldemort 
> > his loyalty later on ("but my Lord, I kept your wand faithfully 
> while 
> > awaiting your return") or for some other reason.  Of course then 
> > Peter has no problem of delivering the wand to V. and V. still 
has 
> > his old wand.

"tanie_05 wrote in reply

> Now here's where you messed up. You must remember that Peter 
> transformed himself into a rat the day after the Potters were 
killed 
> when Sirius went to confront him. He couldn't have possibly kept 
it. 
> If it was that, then why didn't he have his own? Now a possibilty 
is 
> that Peter hid it in some unknown place, maybe hoping Voldemort 
would 
> rise again. I'd probably buy that though. Oh well. Maybe we'll 
never 
> know.

However how do we know that wizards with the ability to become 
animagi are not able to keep their belongings with them when they 
morph into animal form? There is a whole wide discussion group 
complete with essays that debates the issue.  I am part of the group 
that believes that anamagi can indeed retain whatever possesions they 
have with them as long as it is concealed within a piece of clothing 
(such as a cloak or a hat) that will be morphed along with them
(remember in PS McGonagal still had her hat, cloak and glasses with 
her after returning to her human form).  Assuming that this is 
correct, why isnt is possible for Peter to hold onto Voldemorts wand?
OTOH, I could buy the idea of it being hidden, but IMO that would be 
too risky for Peter seeing as anyone could find it and Petey didnt 
know for sure when he would be able to return to wherever he hid the 
wand.  What do you think?





From Cornet83 at aol.com  Sat Feb 16 22:37:47 2002
From: Cornet83 at aol.com (mariahisabel)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 22:37:47 -0000
Subject: An old-fashioned discussion
In-Reply-To: <a4mg04+uaj2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4mmvr+hicp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35348

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "charisjulia" <pollux46 at h...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "booleanfox" <j.balfour at l...> wrote:
> > I would be interested to know what everybody's favourite non-
> > wizarding character is, and why?

Personally I would have to choose Pigwidgeon.  Although he is a 
noisy, hyperactive, jittery little fellow, I find him extremely 
amusing and absolutely adorable.  I think he brings in a touch of 
comic relief especially after the loss of Scabbers that Ron really 
takes to heart. Also he's just so delightfully refreshing, compared 
to the other boring post owls. Now dont get me wrong I love Hedwig 
dearly, but she seems so routine.  Pig is the extreme opposite and I 
like it.  I think I might resort to violence if I was around him too 
long in reality, but on paper, he's hilarious. The same goes for 
Errol.  He's so old, it's just funny.





From m.bockermann at t-online.de  Sat Feb 16 23:57:15 2002
From: m.bockermann at t-online.de (m.bockermann at t-online.de)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 00:57:15 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 1678
References: <1013901652.2674.43505.m4@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <005b01c1b746$18f83d00$9b909fc1@oemcomputer>

No: HPFGUIDX 35349

Well, let us assume, the book is going to beleased in July. Then they
*really should* start to distribut the books by May.

GoF was one of the books with the most books printed for the releas EVER!
Sorry, I dont have the numbers in my head (I will look it up if you
want)... but just in tiny old Germany more than 30 printing firms were hired
for the printing process... the already finished books had to be stored
until the release date... and the personal had to be forced to swear by the
life of their firstborns that they would not smuggle books outside (O.K.,
thats exagerated, but the security had to be high).

If Bloomsbury and Scholastic want to avoid a revolt on the release day,
theyd better have *lots* of books printed by then. And those have to be
printed by someone and transported by someone. And one or two month is
certainly *not* too much time for the organization of such a venture.
Anything less would be... magic.

>From the way Maria told it, Saint Louis is an kind of planing and organizing
centre - some kind of headquarter - for UPS. Am I right Maria? In that case
it would be logical that the transportation firm is asked to reserve
capacities for the delivery date.

We are all going to hear a lot of rumours before Book 5 is out. Hopefully
this one is true. :-)

Barbara Jebenstreit


< He told me that UPS is in charge of the
<distribution of the HP books, and that he heard yesterday that the
<book is coming out in may. It coincides with what we had heard about
<an end-of-school-year release, so it seems quite believable...

<The only flaw with that would be that in the UK,  schools don't finish
until the middle or end of July, so I <am pretty sure that if that is what
is planned, then I doubt that Bloomsbury would permit the book to be
<released in the US before the UK.






From chspnll at pacific.net.in  Sun Feb 17 00:04:57 2002
From: chspnll at pacific.net.in (Chris Parnell)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 11:04:57 +1100
Subject: DADA Teachers
In-Reply-To: <1013901652.2674.43505.m4@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <EMEFJEGPENOCIMPKEAHJAEFACDAA.chspnll@pacific.net.in>

No: HPFGUIDX 35350

Can anyone tell me if JKR told that the next book has a female DADA
teacher?
This is verifiable?

Or, is this simply a generally accepted conclusion by fans?


CP






From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com  Sat Feb 16 23:41:38 2002
From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 23:41:38 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: An old-fashioned discussion - A cheer for Mrs Norris
References: <a4meng+j9s3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004d01c1b743$853ddb80$e197bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 35351


   what cats are *for.*  (Well...that and stepping 
  all over the keyboard while you're trying to post -- Get *off,* 
  Radclyffe!)  Also, I really like her eyes.  Her eyes are really
  what won my heart.

  But since Mrs. Norris may indeed be a wizarding character, then
  I guess I'll cast my vote for Crookshanks.

  Natch!  Mrs Norris gets my vote, it depends what you call a wizarding character after all,  Argus Filch is a squib so can't do wizzarding stuff.and I don't think Mrs Norris is an animagus (well there 's an idea - probably at least a year old on this list - Tabouli probably thinks she is a part-time Severus Snape clone ;-))  

  Besides, how do we know Mrs Norris doesn't sit on Argus's knee when he does his "spell"ing lessons.

  Felicia


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





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 17 00:45:11 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 00:45:11 -0000
Subject: Prediction List for SHIPPING. Short and sweet for future reference.
In-Reply-To: <a4jsai+shua@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4muen+dbh1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35352

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> 1. Ron and Hermione relationship emerges.
> 2. Harry and Ginny relationship emerges.
> 3. Harry and Cho relationship emerges.
> 5. Ginny and Neville relationship emerges.

Most of these I think are dead on and reflect some of my own ideas 
from post 34255 on Jan 28. I that post I suggested possible romantic 
triangles for Harrry and the bunch in coming books.
Central to most of mine ideas was the character Neville and the 
theory that his absent-mindedness is due to a memory charm cast to 
help him deal with the trauma of seeing his parents tortured by the 
Cruciatus curse.

> "Neville during the summer under Dumbledore's care had his memory 
> charm removed and faced the loss of his parents. Facing this, 
> Neville has matured and stands up for himself. He may be 
> researching plants (his specialty) and working with Hermione 
> researching a cure for his parents."

Concerning Harry and Cho I wrote:
> "Harry obviously has a crush on Cho, but as heroic as Harry 
> is, he is still a kid to Cho and if (as I suspect) Cho was in love 
> with Cedric she probably blames Harry for Cedric's death.

Concerning Harry and Ginny I wrote:
> "Harry spent very little time around Ginny with the Triwizard 
> competition and Fleur's and Cho's going through his young mind. I 
> would like to see Harry come visit the Weasley's in summer and 
> suddenly notice a cute redhead before he realizes it's young Ginny 
> Ginny meanwhile might be paying attention to Neville who took her 
> to the Yule Ball and charmed her a bit while Harry was saving the 
> world. 

> "So Ginny may like Neville and be jealous of him spending so much 
> time with Hermione. Ron who likes Hermione, is jealous of Neville 
> for the time Hermione spends with him. Harry realizes he like Ginny 
> and is jealous of Neville and Neville, driven to find a cure for 
> his parents (which he does) is too single-minded to notice the 
> romantic feelings around him."

"lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> 4. Hermione and Viktor Krum relationship emerges.
> 12. Fleur catches someone's heart.

I would like to see Viktor and Fleur return to Hogwart's. Fleur 
expressed interest in working at Hogwart's to improve her English and 
showed interest in Bill Weasley (who Harry described as 'cool'). 
Viktor was invited back to Hogwart's (as were all visitors). Hpwever 
both Viktor and Fleur were in their final years so would only return 
as instructors? 

Personal Note. I'm sure Viktor's a nice guy. It sounded like he he 
wanted to break from Karkaroff and the Durmstrang Dark arts group. 
Still he's an 18 year old Quidditch Star from his national team; 
Hermione, brilliant as she is,is only 14 according to most websites. 
Even if she was 15, would you trust a 18-yr-old sports star with a 14-
yr-old girlfriend?

"lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> 10. Harry and/or Ron develops crush on female DADA teacher.

I think this is assuming the new DADA teacher would be Fleur, which 
realistically she isn't that qualified for. She couldn't even handle 
Grindylows! I suggested her as a possible DADA Teacher in post 34664 
and replies have the the job going to Arabella Figg, one of 
Dumbledore's 'old crowd' and the same Mrs. Figg that babysat Harry.  
Couldn't picture Harry or Ron having a crush on the 'old lady with a 
houseful of cats'.

I could see Fleur as a possible teacher's assistant for Hagrid in 
Magical Creatures. He may be away a bit as a liason to the giants.

Note on Hagrid... he could use some input on lesson plans. His last 
two years stressed flobberworms and Skrewts too heavily. His lessons 
on Unicorns was well-received. How about centaurs or maybe the ferel 
Ford Anglia?

Uncmark




From shanerichmond at hotmail.com  Sun Feb 17 01:10:31 2002
From: shanerichmond at hotmail.com (roleplayer_m_uk)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 01:10:31 -0000
Subject: Rumour about Book 5 release date
In-Reply-To: <000701c1b700$fedc0680$7657893e@Michelle>
Message-ID: <a4mvu7+qctt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35353

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Michelle Apostolides" 
<michelleapostolides at y...> wrote:
> The only flaw with that would be that in the UK,  schools don't 
finish until the middle or end of July, so I am pretty sure that if 
that is what is planned, then I doubt that Bloomsbury would permit 
the book to be released in the US before the UK. 

Perhaps not but I'm pretty certain that half-term falls on the weeks 
beginning May 20 and May 27 this year. (Perhaps someone with kids, or 
someone still in school can confirm that?)

Plus, the DVD of the movie is scheduled for release May 11 and they'd 
be pretty smart to build up the excitement for the DVD and the new 
book together and use each to promote the other.

There may be some truth in it...




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Feb 17 02:35:13 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 02:35:13 -0000
Subject: Rumour about Book 5 release date
In-Reply-To: <a4mvu7+qctt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4n4t1+429e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35354

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "roleplayer_m_uk" 
> 
> Plus, the DVD of the movie is scheduled for release May 11 
and they'd 
> be pretty smart to build up the excitement for the DVD and the 
new 
> book together and use each to promote the other.
> 
> There may be some truth in it...

Or could it be that it is the  DVD and not the book that was going 
to be delivered in May and UPS is saving space for?

Pippin




From Brwneil at aol.com  Sun Feb 17 01:38:59 2002
From: Brwneil at aol.com (Brwneil at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 20:38:59 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Rumour about Book 5 release date
Message-ID: <d4.1334cc3b.29a063b3@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35355

In a message dated 2/16/2002 8:19:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
shanerichmond at hotmail.com writes:

> Perhaps not but I'm pretty certain that half-term falls on the weeks 
> beginning May 20 and May 27 this year. (Perhaps someone with kids, or 
> someone still in school can confirm that?)
> 
> Plus, the DVD of the movie is scheduled for release May 11 and they'd 
> be pretty smart to build up the excitement for the DVD and the new 
> book together and use each to promote the other.
> 
> There may be some truth in it...
 
I think they would do just the opposite.  They wouldn't want the sale of 
one taking away from the other.  DVD in May, Book in Summer,  New Movie in 
Fall.

Neil




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





From dradamsapple at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 17 03:36:28 2002
From: dradamsapple at yahoo.com (Ermenia)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 19:36:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Rumour about Book 5 release date
In-Reply-To: <20020216143537.12136.qmail@web11104.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20020217033628.8991.qmail@web20407.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35356

Hello!

I just had to put my two knuts in!!

First of all, you can go to Amazon.com and request to
be informed about when you can purchase the DVD.  We
actually just got our response telling us that the DVD
 is due to be released May 28. 2002, and that we can
pre-order one (which I am going to do as soon as I
finish this letter  . . .)

Secondly,I also agree that the DVD, and Book 5 will
not come out at the same time ($$$$$$).  I also
predict about the beginning or mid July for OoTP, (I'm
only GUESSING,
I really don't know anything for certain other than
what I just read on Amazon.com)

As Carly Simon sang  . .  . "A N T I C I P A T I O N 
. . ."

Anna
--- Maria <maryblue67 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone!!
> 
> Last night my boyfriend told me something very
> casually about the
> release of Book 5 (he is not a fan, so he doesn't
> understand the
> significance of what he told me)
> 
> Anyway, he works for UPS in Saint Louis, in the
> department of finance
> for big company/corporative deliveries (not the
> personal shipments,
> but company ones). He told me that UPS is in charge
> of the
> distribution of the HP books, and that he heard
> yesterday that the
> book is coming out in may. It coincides with what we
> had heard about
> an end-of-school-year release, so it seems quite
> believable...
> 
> Hope it is true!!!
> 
> Maria
> 
> =====
> Maryblue
>
----------------------------------------------------------
> "Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people
> falling
> in love" - Eistein
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
> http://sports.yahoo.com
> 


=====
"Why do they have to move in packs?" Harry asked Ron . . .
"How're you supposed to get one on their own to ask them?"
"Lasso one?" Ron suggested.
HP and the GoF; JK Rowling

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com




From catlover at netwrx1.com  Sun Feb 17 04:05:00 2002
From: catlover at netwrx1.com (Kim Heikkinen)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 22:05:00 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: An old-fashioned discussion
In-Reply-To: <a4j33i+mavq@eGroups.com>
References: <a4imhb+e9ag@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4.3.0.20020216220254.00ade860@pop.netwrx1.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35357


>"booleanfox" <j.balfour at l...> wrote:
>I would be interested to know what everybody's favourite non-
>wizarding character is, and why?

I like Crookshanks best, too, as several others have already said. I like 
the fact that he's a loyal ally and a hero. Also, I really applaud JKR for 
making him a "good guy" as she has said in an interview that she doesn't 
like cats! FYI, I believe it was one of the Scholastic interviews, but 
(alas!) I'm not positive.

Kim

*******************************************************************
Kim Heikkinen catlover at netwrx1.com
"I may not be an explorer, or an adventurer, or a treasure seeker, or a 
gunfighter...but I am proud of what I am...I AM A LIBRARIAN!!!"--The Mummy
Don't blame me, I voted for Gore!  http://www.fight4choice.com
It's hard to be angry when a cat is sitting in your lap...
******************************************************************* 

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





From brewpub44 at earthlink.net  Sun Feb 17 04:51:42 2002
From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 04:51:42 -0000
Subject: RHR and friendship, wasRe: [HPforGrownups] Re: RE:SHIP: Problems with the concept of G/H
In-Reply-To: <1366016512.20020213104022@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <a4ncsu+ulj4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35358

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne <siskiou at e...> wrote:
> 
> 
[talking about Ron & Harry]
> 
> I wonder if Harry would have made friends with whoever was
> sitting with him on the train ride to Hogwarts, assuming
> they had been reasonably friendly.
> 
> Why wasn't anyone else joining them, anyhow?
> And why didn't Ron sit with his Fred and George, though they
> probably didn't want their younger brother with them.
> 
> 
> They never seem to hang out much with other boys, except the
> time in GoF, where Ron sits with other kids and mentions
> being with his brothers Fred and George.
> 
> He gets on well enough with other kids, but doesn't seem to
> initiate much contact or go past friendly exchanges.
> 
> Is he just happy with the relationships he has now?

Hi there. I think there are a couple of factors at work here. 

One: Ron comes from a crowded house, lots of people around, and being 
at the bottom of the family food chain (being the youngest except for 
a 'cutesy' younger sister), he probably has had enough of crowds. 
Plus, no one in his family is really his age, so it is reasonable to 
assume he would gravitate to someone who was.

Two: if I remember my youth correctly, when starting a new school I 
tended to become friends with the first kid who said 'boo' to me. 
Later you'd drift & find others if those first kids rubbed you the 
wrong way, but if it worked, it worked.

Three: Harry has had very few social skills prior to Hogwarts. Being 
locked in a closet is not conducive to being an outgoing person. And 
even though Hogwarts makes him happy, it's hard to change gears and 
become socially popular.

A Barkeep in Diagon Alley




From brewpub44 at earthlink.net  Sun Feb 17 05:12:05 2002
From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 05:12:05 -0000
Subject: Percy, death(Re:WAS SHIP R/H and P/P
In-Reply-To: <F30QNpOeQM6D13MC6qb00005d97@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a4ne35+aeh3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35359

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "andrea mcpherson talia chambers" 
<dumbledore94 at h...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eileen wrote:
> 
> >Sad to say, though, I think Percy will die, and, therefore, JKR 
won't
> >have the stomach to develop the relationship with Penny.
> 
> 
> I completely agree that Percy will die.
> 

Let's take that a bit further. Let's say Percy gets killed by LV or a 
DE.

Now, let's say that, as another poster wrote, the Weasly's all "bawl 
their eyes out", plus Harry & Hermione and Penelope, etc.

But then what happens? The Weasley's go on the offensive. Here is a 
whole family of very capable wizards. Yes, they all act clownish in 
their own ways, but I don't think they are to be trifled with, and 
that's a mistake that I hope at least the Malfoys learn the hard way.

Consider:
Dad, MoM employee, head-honcho of Muggle interactions. Has to know 
how to counter a lot of curses, wipe a lot of minds, enchant & 
disenchant a lot of items, none of it sounds very simple. Also has 
friends in high places, Moody for one, but many others.
Mom, seems to be no slouch either. Keeping a housefull of kids is no 
easy task, I'm sure she's seen all sorts of stuff, and you can see in 
our own world how mothers can go on the warpath when their kids are 
at risk or killed.
Brother #1 (forgive me if I get the age order wrong): Dragon-keeper. 
Do you want to watch over dragons? Didn't think so -- nuff said.
Brother #2: Studies ancient Egypt. Has encountered various ancient 
curses & magic, can't be easy stuff, and if Lily used ancient magic 
(according to Dumbledore) to protect Harry, perhaps LV isn't very 
good at ancient magic. Ancient Egypt could hold all sorts of 
nastiness in store for him.
Brother #3 & 4 (the twins): conniving sons-of-guns if I ever read of 
any. They can get themselves out of scrapes, and are definite 
schemers and plotters.
Brother #5: at the very least, he is loyal to his friends and family. 
Many on the board believe he is a clever strategist (I'm not so sure 
of this myself, but the arguments are interesting).
Sister: Well, Ginny's strengths aren't apparent as of yet, but she 
did surive Riddle, and that has to account for something.

Throw in Hermione (clever & not afraid to research her way out of 
problems, a trait I find very admirable) and Harry (who has trumped 
LV four times), and there you have it.

Battle Royale, anyone?

A Barkeep in Diagon Alley




From theennead at attbi.com  Sun Feb 17 05:24:40 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 05:24:40 -0000
Subject: Snape & the DEs
In-Reply-To: <46FE299C-22BE-11D6-898B-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a4neqo+n4ko@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35360

Porphyria wrote:

> In the end, of course, the interpretation that appeals to a given 
> person is entirely subjective, and I can only hope that I've sort 
> of answered her original question as to why a given speculation 
> appeals, if not in general, at least to me.

You have -- very much so -- and thank you for the discussion.  I 
agree with your implication that we seem to have pretty well wrapped 
up that particular line of exploration.  So on to the loose 
interpretive ends!

> See I tend to see intellect as the efflorescence of instinct: 
> simply put, people actually do tend to use their intellect to 
> justify their impulses. And there is some evidence that Snape has 
> protective instincts interspersed with his vicious ones. Not 
> sentimental instincts, but still protective ones. 

<nods>  I would agree with that.  And so I suppose I should mitigate 
my earlier description of Snape as a man whose instincts "all lead 
him in one unerring direction."  You're quite right: they don't "all."

On the question of whether or not he's got a taste for physical 
sadism, though...while I most certainly do read him as having one, 
and while I am unlikely to change my mind on that without canonical 
opposition, it isn't really an issue in which I have all that much 
emotionally invested (unlike, say, my insistence on reading the DEs 
as "greyer-than-black").  

I think that I tend to read him that way in part because he *is* such 
a larger-than-life character, and because he exists in a fictive 
universe that is in many ways far more exaggerated -- and far more 
savage -- than our own.  It just seems to fit, somehow, to me to read 
him as somebody who did indeed have a visceral appreciation for that 
sense of ultimate power over another human being.

The main reason, though, that I think I read him that way is this:

> Snape definitely has a taste for psychological torture and he 
> indulges himself in this whenever he has the chance. But I'm not 
> convinced that he doesn't make a qualitative distinction between 
> mental violence and physical violence. He's almost never the 
> latter...

The fact that he *does* indulge himself in his taste for verbal and
psychological cruelty every chance he gets, while never engaging in
the slightest bit of unwarranted (or at least, as you point out, 
*uninvited*) physical violence, is my main reason, I think, for 
suspecting that he genuinely does have a taste for the latter.

As I see it, Snape is somebody who works very hard at trying to do 
the right thing, trying not to descend into whatever it is that he
fears that he once was.  The fact that he shows not even the slightest
sign of *trying* to restrain himself when it comes to psychological 
sadism indicates to my mind that he really doesn't think that sort of 
thing very important.  To his mind, it doesn't count.  He's allowed
to indulge himself in that way, because that's not "real" cruelty, 
not "real" Darkness.

Which to my mind begs the question of what Snape *would* consider
"real."  What are the things that he would on some level like to be 
doing, or that he once enjoyed, but that he will never again allow 
himself to do?  

In short, I certainly agree with you that Snape makes a qualitative
distinction between mental violence and physical violence.  I would 
say that he considers the former acceptable, and the latter 
unacceptable.  But given what we know of his past, and given how 
readily and unhesitatingly -- and even *gleefully* -- he indulges 
himself in the former, my strong suspicion is that the latter is 
something that he once did enjoy, and that he fears he might still 
enjoy, even while believing it to be utterly morally unacceptable.

> I can't help but think if JKR had intended the reader to see him as 
> having a propensity for physical violence she would have found a
> way to depict that by now. . . . but if he does have a taste for it 
> he seems to have sublimated it quite effectively into it's 
> psychological equivalent.

Well, you see, to my mind JKR most certainly *has* depicted that 
propensity.  She's depicted it all along, through her (quite vivid, 
IMO) depictions of his sublimation. 

But clearly where I automatically read sublimation, others equally 
instinctively read preference, so perhaps not.

But at any rate, as I said before, it's not really all that important 
to me whether or not Severus Snape has an unfortunate taste for real 
live sadism.  I remain convinced that he does, but should it turn out 
that he never really cared for it at all, that would necessitate 
only a very minor revision of my reading of the character.  And 
honestly, I'm hoping that we never find out one way or the other.  
I'm not prepared for the series to get quite *that* dark.  I'd really 
just rather not go there at all, to tell you the truth.

<Is Snape really written as sympathetic?>

> > Well, of course he is!  

> See, in your post that I was replying to you stated that JKR
> "seems, overall, to like the character far less than many of her 
> readers do" and here I feel like you're chiding me for stating the 
> obvious. :-) 

I'm sorry.  I didn't mean to chide.  Sometimes I fall into the error
of assuming points of agreement before they've really yet been 
established as such, and when that happens, then the tone can easily 
go astray.  I didn't mean to sound obnoxious there.

To clarify, what I meant before about JKR liking the character less 
than many of her readers do was that she strikes me as impressively 
hard-nosed about him.  I do think that she likes him, but she never 
allows herself to get *soft* about him, if you know what I mean.  She 
doesn't smooth his edges, and she never allows the authorial voice to 
waver in its depiction of his less savory characteristics.  This is 
particularly impressive given the books' serialized nature: serials 
often have a nasty tendency to "soften up" harsh or ambiguous 
characters, particularly when these characters prove popular with 
fans.  JKR never does that.  She lets what's nasty about Snape stay 
nasty.

I seem to remember that we were talking about Snape's taste in 
companions back when I made that comment.  My point there, if I'm 
remembering correctly, was that I didn't think that just because JKR 
likes/understands/sympathizes/identifies with the character, she 
necessarily falls into the trap of thinking that he would like *her,* 
for example, or that he would care for the sorts of people that she 
cares for as companions, or that his preferences in human 
companionship would have very much to do at all with her own.  Which 
may seem dead obvious, perhaps, but given that Rowling is effectively 
a first-time author writing what has proven to be an immensely-
popular-beyond-any-possible-expectation series, it isn't necessarily 
a *given.*  Writers, particularly young writers, get sucked into that 
trap all the time.

I agree with you that Snape is written to be sympathetic, both on the 
dead simple "gets the best lines" level and on the more sophisticated 
human level.  I brought up the first there primarily because I had 
been assuming (incorrectly, it would seem) that we were in 
fundamental agreement on the second point already, and so wanted to 
take the opportunity to touch upon ways in which I felt that Rowling
laid the *groundwork* for reader sympathy for Snape.  I do think that 
she uses the "Villain With Style" phenomenon quite consciously and 
deliberately in PS/SS to prime the reader's sympathy from very early 
on in the game, and I think it rather clever, the way that she does 
that.  

> I mean real sympathy, the sympathy you'd feel for a guy who tries 
> in his own weird way to do the *right* thing and nearly always 
> winds up being construed as the bad guy on account of it. The 
> particular scene that I find wrenching is the staircase encounter 
> in GoF where, as we come to find, Snape is being quite viciously
> tormented by someone who really is a bad guy who is plunging for 
> the one raw nerve he knows Snape has. 

I find that scene wrenching as well.  There the poor man is, he's in 
a very vulnerable situation -- while we haven't hit Pensieve yet, or 
even Padfoot, there have been more than enough hints already dropped 
into the text at that point for the attentive reader to have quite a 
few ideas about what sorts of things might be troubling Severus 
Snape -- he's in his *nightshirt,* for God's sake -- he doesn't even 
have the psychological protection of being fully-dressed -- and 
Crouch is standing there nailing him on every sore spot he can find.  
It's terrible (and it only gets worse on re-reading), and I think 
that Snape's quite clearly written there to gain our sympatheties.

But for me, the end of PoA is infinitely worse.

> Snape's breakdown at the end of PoA is quite similar in that he 
> *thought* he was bringing a psycho-killer to justice, and somehow 
> that whole situation just didn't work out for him. You mention this 
> scene yourself...

> > I mean, really.  What sort of heartless monster *wouldn't* 
> > sympathize with Snape at the end of PoA, when he disintegrates 
> > utterly into his raving "Curses, Foiled Again, and Damn You, You 
> > Meddling Kids" hysteria?  You'd just have to be made of *stone,* 
> > wouldn't you?

> ...but I'm afraid I'm not quite sure if you're being facetious here 
> or not. :-) I'm arguing that one actually *can* read this scene 
> with a sympathetic eye to Snape without construing it as an 
> iteration of a Scooby Doo episode. Well, maybe it's just me.

Again, sorry about the facetious tone.  It clearly masked my intent 
there, rather than enhancing it as it was meant to do; and again, I 
apologize if I came across as sounding intolerably snarky.

You see, what makes the end of PoA so much more sympathy-inducing, to 
my way of thinking, then even Egg and the Eye *is* its very 
cartoonishness.  It's the fact that Snape, whose interpretation of 
events is perfectly reasonable under the circumstances, and who has 
behaved with extraordinary courage and commitment and even honor in 
trying to save Harry from murderous Black and his werewolf co-
conspirator Lupin, and who has found the children he was trying to
protect to be not only unappreciative but even downright hostile -- 
they actually *attack* him -- and who seems to be finally about to 
get some recognition for a change, should then have to degenerate 
into a form of hysteria that seems to conform so neatly to the very 
image that has led him to be so mistrusted and disliked and 
underappreciated in the first place.  

Snape's temper tantrum at the end of PoA *is* more than a little 
reminiscent of Snidely Whiplash snarling "Curses, Foiled Again!" and 
it has more than a touch of the "And I would have gotten away with it 
too, if it weren't for those meddling kids!" speech of every Scooby-
Doo villain ever poorly-animated for the small screen as well.  And 
to my mind, that's far more painful than anything in Egg and the Eye, 
because for Snape, that's a really profound failure.  

Snape doesn't fail in Egg and the Eye at all, really.  He's taking it 
on the chin, and he's flinching a bit, but while he may feel 
disappointed with himself for his reaction, he in no way humiliates 
himself.  He doesn't break, and he doesn't make himself appear 
ludicrous.  And perhaps even more to the point, his reactions are 
very...well, human.  Normal.  He's a person in pain, and he's acting 
like a person in pain.

By the end of PoA, we've been given more than enough information to 
understand that Snape really is a person in pain.  But his hysteria 
doesn't come across as "Normal" or "Human" in the least.  To Fudge, 
it comes across as "Madman."  To us (and, I think, to the kids), it 
comes across very much as "Cartoon Villain Destined Always To Be 
Thwarted."

And I think that this is deliberately intended to be sympathetic.  
It's a complicated dynamic, because it encourages sympathy for him on
the level of his *ostensible* literary function (constantly-thwarted 
villainous type) and on the level of his human status (poor Severus 
just can't catch a break, can he?) and then on the third level of his 
role as a person struggling to overcome his *association* with a 
certain literary type (as you said, he's always trying to do the 
right thing and being construed as a villain in spite of it; here 
he fails *dramatically* in his efforts to be perceived as something
other than a villainous stereotype).

And no, I wasn't being facetious at all when I wrote that you'd have 
to have a heart of stone not to sympathize with him there.  I find 
that scene agonizing.  It's just heart-breaking, far more painful, 
IMO, than anything he's forced to undergo in GoF.  


As to Snape's loyalty to House Slytherin, I think that we may be 
running into very much the same difficulties here as I've had earlier 
in discussions about Snape's relationship to his old DE colleagues.  
There sometimes seems to be very little middle ground in people's 
perceptions when it comes to issues of affection, loyalty or regard, 
and I often find myself reacting to this in some rather extreme ways.

For example, in regard to Snape's feelings towards the Slyth kids:

> Does this make sense? I'm saying that under normal circumstances 
> Snape's loyalty would not be an issue at all, but these are far 
> from normal circumstances and he'll have to make some kind of 
> ethical decision somewhere on down the line regarding his students. 
> And I don't think his choice will work to their advantage. 

And this certainly makes sense to me.  I agree: it will not work to 
their advantage, and in very much the same way that his decisions in 
regard to his old DE colleagues did not work to their advantage.

This fact does, however, often seem to get translated into a 
perception of hatred or loathing or contempt, and that's what I find 
difficult to understand, as I just don't see that in the text at 
*all.*  It gets back to that old issue of the possibility of liking 
or of having respect for or of feeling a loyalty to someone, while 
simultaneously working in opposition to them, a concept which seems 
perfectly natural and reasonable to me, but which others seem to find 
intrinsically nonsensical.  Perhaps I am merely treacherous and 
untrustworthy by nature?  ;-)

Of course when the chips are down and it becomes a matter of battle 
lines being drawn, I think that Snape's primary loyalty is to the 
same cause that he risked his life for fifteen years ago.  But that 
does not, to my mind, have strong bearing on the question of, say, 
whether or not he shows favoritism to the Slyth kids when it does 
*not* particularly matter, or on whether or not he identifies with 
them, or on whether or not he acts on behalf of their welfare when it 
does not conflict with his primary loyalty, or on whether or not he 
feels any regard for them.

Snape's motivations in regard to the Slyth kids often seem to me to be
dual.  His sycophantic smirk when Draco tells him that he should 
replace Dumbledore as Headmaster, for example, is obviously 
duplicitous -- Snape has no interest in seeing Dumbledore removed 
from his position -- but I don't read it as completely insincere 
either: he *is* genuinely pleased, I think, to hear the kid say so.  
Similarly, his favoritism of his own House strikes me as far more 
extreme than it needs to be simply to stay in the good graces of all 
the Slyth kids' Daddies.  It is duplicitous in that the secondary 
motive is present, but it is also genuine in that I think that he 
*likes* showing favor to his own House, that he would be doing so 
even if the extenuating circumstances were not present, and that he 
does so even when it is not strictly necessary to maintain his image 
or his position.

The original question here, though, I seem to remember was one of 
primary motive -- "why does Snape favor the Slytherins?" -- and 
really, that's an impossible question to answer.  I think that he 
does so for multiple reasons, and that the question of which is 
the "primary" and which the "secondary" motive is probably not only 
completely context-dependent, but also ultimately unanswerable.  I 
doubt that Snape himself knows how he prioritizes such considerations.


I asked:

> > Has he cracked down on Draco's bullying within House Slytherin 
> > (assuming, that is, that Draco does bully the younger Slyth kids, 
> > which I'm sure that he does, if he's allowed to get away with 
> > it)? 

Porphyria wrote:

> Hey, I thought you were the one arguing that there was a lot of in-
> group loyalty among the Slytherin? ;-) 

Hee!  Clever Porphryia!  Ah, but the thing that nobody noticed (or at 
least, that nobody called me on at the time, although I was terribly 
afraid that somebody would) about all of my proofs defending that 
thesis was that nowhere could I find a single instance of Draco 
himself actually going out of his way for another one of the Slyth 
kids.  All of the examples that involved Draco at all were examples 
of the other Slyth kids defending *him.*

I think that Draco's a lousy Slyth, myself.  Old Salazar would smack 
him upside the head, if he were still around.

Seriously, though, I do think that there's strong suggestion that the 
House places a high value on in-group loyalty -- I stand by that 
notion -- but I also think that Draco himself is a terribly selfish 
boy who would be most unlikely to uphold that principle in practice.  
It would be nice if we'd seen any evidence at all to the contrary, 
but we haven't.  Should he ever take a bullet for Crabbe or Goyle, 
I'll happily eat my words...but I'm not going to hold my breath 
waiting for that to happen.


> ...I think whatever affection he genuinely feels is eclipsed by the 
> complex set of loyalties and deceptions he's caught up in. It's at 
> best a complicated and at worst a deceitful sort of liking going on 
> here.

No disagreements here.  But I tend to view that dynamic as less 
an "eclipse" than a...a waltz, perhaps?  An interweaving?  A tangled 
convoluted mess?

Like I said, it's much as I perceive his entire emotional
relationship to his old DE colleagues, really: as far *far* more 
complicated than either "he hates them but just pretends to like 
them 'cause that's his job" or "he adores them without reservation or 
any need for duplicity" can possibly allow for.  


Both Serpensortia and the Dark Arts I've pulled out to address 
elsewhere, largely because they seemed likely to be of somewhat more 
general interest than our general Snapish ramblings.  ;-)


But as for assorted weird speculative theories...

> And please sign me up for the Fourth Man Theory, I'll take the 
> smorgasbord of options: Imperius, SHIP and remorse, with the full 
> complement of perverse possibilities. 

Yay!  *Now*, verily, there is a drove.  Four people surely a drove 
doth...

<startled look>

Hey, Porphyria!  Do you realize that this makes *you* our Fourth Man?

I'm partial to the Number Three Combination Special -- Imperius, 
SHIP, and Remorse, with assorted perversions on the side -- myself.  
But then, I've a nasty little mind.

> I'd also like to apply for membership to Cupid's Snitch -- that's 
> the most forehead-smackingly convincing theory I've heard in nearly 
> two years of speculation. I second all the gushy posts you're 
> getting.

LOL!  Thank you.  How would you like to defend it for me?  Because 
the sad fact of the matter is that *I* can't force myself to believe 
in Cupid's Snitch for even a second, which makes the prospect of now
being called upon to defend the damned thing a little bit...well, 
dismaying, really.

I do like the idea of Mr. Lestrange calling his wife "Flo," though.  
It's just so terribly incongruous.


-- Elkins, obviously hopelessly out of touch with the zeitgeist.




From oppen at cnsinternet.com  Sun Feb 17 06:51:04 2002
From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 00:51:04 -0600
Subject: My new candidate for Voldemort's agent-in-place at Hogwarts
Message-ID: <01b801c1b77f$79147d00$e1c71bce@hppav>

No: HPFGUIDX 35361

I've just thought of someone who would be perfect for the role of
"Overlooked Character Who Is Hiding A Dark Secret" in the next
book...Professor Trelawney!

For all we know to the contrary, she could actually be a _good_ Seer (her
mantic trance, as in _Chamber of Secrets,_ comes on her unpredictably, but
she can do a good deal with more ordinary and, dare I say, "predictable"
methods such as Tarot cards, crystal balls and tea leaves) who prefers to
hide her powers.  And what better cover for a _real_ Seer than a
_fraudulent_ Seer?  If she pops out with a real prediction, everybody
discounts it "oh, that's crazy Trelawney being impressive again."

At present, she can ensnare some of the sillier students, and utilize them
in various ways without their being fully aware that they're being
used---just because she's a Seer doesn't mean that she doesn't know other
magic; for all we know, she's got Parvati Patil and Lavender Brown reporting
in to her regularly, using the Imperius Curse to make them do as they're
told and using Memory Charms, a la Lockhart, to make sure that they don't
remember telling her all that is going on in the school.  She's also
well-placed to wander around on her own, possibly with an Invisibility Cloak
a la Harry Potter, and has as much access to the school as any other faculty
member.

Voldemort has a history of using people one wouldn't expect to Wreak His
Evil Will---Barty Crouch, Jr., Crouch-as-Moody, Peter (Wormtail) Pettigrew,
Professor Quirrel...who would have suspected _any_ of them?  If he still
thinks Snape's loyal to him, he's probably given the Potions Master orders
to, among other things, _act_ evil and nasty to deflect people's attention
from the people who're _really doing his work for him at Hogwarts.  Remember
Quirrel's speech to Harry at the end of PS/SS?  "Professor Snape?  So
useful---swooping around like an overgrown bat!  With him around, who'd
suspect p-p-poor, s-s-stuttering P-p-professor Quirrel?"

So---whether or not she's an actual, realio-trulio Seer, an ordinary witch
with occasional mantic trance states who's found that the position of
Divination Professor's better than *yuck* working for a living, or something
in between, she's excellently positioned to work for Voldemort, and she's
one of the last people anybody would suspect.  We didn't even get to meet
her till CoS, if memory serves.

--Eric, wondering who's been meddling with his anti-paranoia meds.

"Give a hobbit a fish, and he eats fish for a day.
Give a hobbit a ring, and he eats fish for an age."





From vencloviene at hotmail.com  Sun Feb 17 07:51:15 2002
From: vencloviene at hotmail.com (anavenc)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 07:51:15 -0000
Subject: Canon evidence for Snape being a vampire
In-Reply-To: <a4k20c+s65s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4nndj+mqrt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35362

Impressive list, Pippin.

A lot of Snape-vampire hints, but taken as a whole the evidence is 
ambiguous and lets us draw any conclusions we want. 

Well, I admit that all these vampire references might easily be a red 
herring--one more example of Snape being not what he seems.

However, I like to think that Snape indeed is a part-vampire. Wasn't 
it your theory that one of his "grandmuzzers" came from Transylvania? 
 Sounds good to me.

Why I want Snape to be a vampire: just because of morbid curiosity. I 
can't help wondering what would happen if Snape's non-human origins 
were revealed and fat would *really* hit the frying-pan.  Hagrid in 
this situation drunk and sobbed for a week, Lupin quietly resigned, so 
what would Snape do?

One more thing: JKR seems to treat the vampire theme differently from 
the themes of the other known HP part-humans.  Hagrid turned out to be 
a half-giant without any foreshadowing at all; Lupin and Fleur's 
part-humanness (humanity?:)) was revealed in the same book they had 
first appeared (PoA and GoF respectively), but look what happens with 
vampires: numerous foreshadowings throughout the four books and still 
no vampire appearance. A lot of suspense, I would say.  Might it 
possibly mean that vampire topic will turn to be very important for  
the overall plot of the series?

If Snape turns out to be a vampire, than his life story might be a 
sort of opposite of Voldie's life story and in line with the main 
moral statement JKR makes in the series: that our choices, not our 
origins define what we are.  Tom Riddle, 100% human, handsome and 
talented, chose to take a dark path and became a full-fledged vampire: 
he maintains his livelihood using others' blood (drinking unicorn 
blood in HPSS, using Harry's blood in GoF).  Meanwhile Snape, a 
vampire, and therefore considered evil by cultural default, chose a 
right path and ended up not only being a character milllions of fans 
are crazy about, but also able to see his reflection in a mirror (GoF) 
:D.

Cheers,   Ana.  




 




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 17 08:51:00 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 08:51:00 -0000
Subject: Musings on Draco  (minor shipping)
In-Reply-To: <a4bs2o+5m1g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4nqtk+l8hu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35363

Just referreed a bizarre argument between 11yo niece and 13 yo 
nephew. Nephew is a Draco fan and goes as far as shipping Draco and 
Hermione because he saqys Draco warned Hermione at the World Cup. 

As I remember it, Draco warned Harmione to "Watch out if you don't 
want everyone to see your knickers!" 

It's too far a stretch to think Draco has feelings for Hermione 
especially with his treatment of her in Ch0fS "Mudbloods and Muggle-
lovers first!"

In the Aftermath of GofF, though, LV has returned and when last we 
saw Malfoy, Goyle, and Crabbe they were unconscious and sprouting 
mushrooms from picking a fight with HRH and F&G. 

My Nephew, who refuses to believe that Draco is evil, thinks he will 
reform when confronted by the true evil of Voldemort.  

Interesting concept. Consider that Little Draco has probably been 
indoctrinated with LV propaganda from Lucius from an eatly age(as has 
C&G). Draco seems the most intelligent of the three, but can anyone 
make a case for redemption?

He would need courage to stand up to his father, and has shown little 
of it before. Remember his panicking and running away in the Forest 
in book 1?

Can anyone make a case supporting him? With the rumormill spouting 
that a major character wil crack ala Frodo, my vote would be for 
Draco. If he did stand up for the right, he would lose his family 
wealth and status. 




From msn.tsf at hccnet.nl  Sun Feb 17 11:05:40 2002
From: msn.tsf at hccnet.nl (Yoris)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 12:05:40 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lucius is the most evil character IMO (WAS: Re: Would Lucius have gone on a Voldy hunt?)
Message-ID: <001d01c1b7a3$09580440$9600000a@NEWPC>

No: HPFGUIDX 35364

I actually think Lucius is the most evil character of the whole series, I
mean Voldemort had a reason to hate mudbloods and muggles (his father) he
had a terrible youth and he doesn't deny his evilness, I mean, he doesn't
betray his own believes.

Lucius in contrary 'eet van twee walletjes' as we say it in holland, he
tries to profit from everything, it doesn't matter if they are in line of his believes, if he has any....
He doesn't stay loyal to his master Voldemort, he only uses Voldemort to
comply his wants... that's why he is so evil, the most evil.


Joris




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





From msn.tsf at hccnet.nl  Sun Feb 17 12:36:16 2002
From: msn.tsf at hccnet.nl (Yoris)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 13:36:16 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Canon evidence for Snape being a vampire
References: <a4nndj+mqrt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001701c1b7af$b1a2a270$9600000a@NEWPC>

No: HPFGUIDX 35365

The only point in favor of Snape being a vampire is his appearance, all
other vampire requirements are not matched
> right path and ended up not only being a character milllions of fans
> are crazy about, but also able to see his reflection in a mirror (GoF)
> :D.

Well I don't remember a part where Snape sees himself in GoF but if it
exists that already is one not a vampire thing.


He referees a quidditch match, so he's touched by daylight, vampires are
supposed to get killed by daylight.

He threathens Quirrel being standing REALLY close to him, and Quirrel has
garlic everywhere and he smells like garlic too, so how could Snape have
done that if he was a vampire?

He doesn't have vampire teeth, Harry would have noticed it immediately
since there IS a part describing his teeth.

There aren't any Christian crosses in HP (and I'm glad about that) so it's
not like Snape's avoiding them.

I think to remember -not sure about this though- Snape is the only teacher
sleeping with his house... but vampires have to sleep in a coffin so
everybody in Slytherin would have to know

hmm now I think of it there is 1 real argument of Snape being a vampire,
what wasn't on the list:

"He was interrupted by a knock on the door.
'Come in', called Lupin
The door opened and in came Snape"

He has to ask if he can come in, but then again, wouldn't anybody knock when
they hear 2 peope talk to each other?!

Joris





From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 17 13:01:52 2002
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 13:01:52 -0000
Subject: Avery, Voldemort's Wand, Timeline (WAS Avery and Ambushes)
In-Reply-To: <a4mma8+jk4o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4o9k0+36g7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35366

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mariahisabel" <Cornet83 at a...> wrote:
> 
> in a previous post, I wrote
> 
> > > old Peter keeps the wand, either as a way to try and show 
> voldemort 
> > > his loyalty later on ("but my Lord, I kept your wand faithfully 
> > while 
> > > awaiting your return") or for some other reason.  Of course then 
> > > Peter has no problem of delivering the wand to V. and V. still 
> has 
> > > his old wand.
> 
> "tanie_05 wrote in reply
> 
> > Now here's where you messed up. You must remember that Peter 
> > transformed himself into a rat the day after the Potters were 
> killed 
> > when Sirius went to confront him. He couldn't have possibly kept 
> it. 
> > If it was that, then why didn't he have his own? Now a possibilty 
> is 
> > that Peter hid it in some unknown place, maybe hoping Voldemort 
> would 
> > rise again. I'd probably buy that though. Oh well. Maybe we'll 
> never 
> > know.
> 
> However how do we know that wizards with the ability to become 
> animagi are not able to keep their belongings with them when they 
> morph into animal form?   Assuming that this is 
> correct, why isnt is possible for Peter to hold onto Voldemorts wand?

Because if he had (and the fact that he and other Animagi transform with their clothes suggests that 
this is not impossible), then he would have been able to attack Sirius and Lupin in the Shreaking Shack 
when they forced him to transform into a human.  Even if he was too frightened to attack two armed 
wizards (and I'm not certain, but wasn't only Lupin armed at this point?) there should at some point 
have been an attempt to disarm him as leaving a hostile wizard armed is a very stupid thing to do 
(note that the very first thing Lupin does upon entering the SS is to disarm HRH, and he thinks they're 
on his side).  

Plus, if Peter had a wand on him, his best bet the moment it became obvious that Sirius was going to 
expose him and that Lupin was starting to believe Sirius was to transform on his own while everyone 
was shouting at everybody else and use the element of surprise to catch whoever was armed at that 
point off guard.  He could then kill everyone, making it look like Black or Lupin's fault, and either 
transform back into a rat or run off never to be seen again.  The fact that Peter simply waits for Black 
and Lupin to transform him back into a human suggests that he has no other alternative course of 
action (other than to run away which he tries desperately to do.)

Abigail






From andrew_macian at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 17 16:21:27 2002
From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 08:21:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Canon evidence for Snape being a vampire
In-Reply-To: <001701c1b7af$b1a2a270$9600000a@NEWPC>
Message-ID: <20020217162127.82647.qmail@web9502.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35367

Greetings from Andrew!

A short comment in re one of the night's children...
--- Yoris <msn.tsf at hccnet.nl> wrote:
{snip}
> 
> He referees a quidditch match, so he's touched by
> daylight, vampires are
> supposed to get killed by daylight.
{snip}

This depends heavily on what mythos the vampire
represents.  All of the ones that I know about in the
'real' world aren't affected by sunlight -if- they are
'awake' through dawn.  I have a feeling that this
particular bit of lore is best attributed to
Hollywood's re-writing of Stoker; anyone have a more
definitive source?

Cheers,

An in the midst of coffee Drieux

=====
ICQ # 76184391

'Each game of chess means there's one less
      Variation left to be played;
 Each day got through means one or two less
      Mistakes remain to be made.'
      --'Chess' by Sir Tim Rice

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com



From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Feb 17 17:00:58 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 17:00:58 -0000
Subject: Canon evidence for Snape being a vampire
In-Reply-To: <a4nndj+mqrt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4onka+eq3t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35368

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "anavenc" <vencloviene at h...> wrote:
> Impressive list, Pippin.

Thanks!

>.  Meanwhile Snape, a 
> vampire, and therefore considered evil by cultural default, 
chose a 
> right path and ended up not only being a character milllions of 
fans 
> are crazy about, but also able to see his reflection in a mirror 
(GoF) 


Gosh darnnit, I knew I was forgetting something important. 

GoF -35
"Snape followed [Dumbledore], looking into the Foe-Glass 
where his own face was still visible, staring into the room."

Snape enters the room behind Dumbledore, McGonagall goes 
straight to Harry, but Dumbledore kicks the stunned 
Crouch/Moody over onto his back. Snape is right behind him, 
presumably as back up, but his attention is drawn to the 
Foe-Glass, obviously not an ordinary mirror. Snape's fascinated 
by it because ---he's never seen his reflection before?

Pippin
who thinks that JKR is being very mysterious about vampires. If 
not Snape, what is she hiding?




From knitwit1912 at sympatico.ca  Sun Feb 17 17:23:57 2002
From: knitwit1912 at sympatico.ca (Karen Shepherd)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 12:23:57 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape & the DEs
References: <a4neqo+n4ko@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C6FE72D.92571EF7@sympatico.ca>

No: HPFGUIDX 35369



re: the end of PoA

Elkins wrote (in response to Porphyria):

> You see, what makes the end of PoA so much more sympathy-inducing, to
> my way of thinking, then even Egg and the Eye *is* its very
> cartoonishness.  It's the fact that Snape, whose interpretation of
> events is perfectly reasonable under the circumstances, and who has
> behaved with extraordinary courage and commitment and even honor in
> trying to save Harry from murderous Black and his werewolf co-
> conspirator Lupin, and who has found the children he was trying to
> protect to be not only unappreciative but even downright hostile --
> they actually *attack* him -- and who seems to be finally about to
> get some recognition for a change, should then have to degenerate
> into a form of hysteria that seems to conform so neatly to the very
> image that has led him to be so mistrusted and disliked and
> underappreciated in the first place.

One thing I've noticed as well, that ratchets the sympathy levels to
even new heights.  I have a very strong belief that Snape *knew*
Dumbledore helped Sirius Black escape.  Unfortunately I don't have the
text at hand, but hopefully I can remember enough to get my point
across.

When Dumbledore asks Fudge, Snape and Pomfrey if he can talk with H&H
alone, everyone but Snape leaves.  Snape stays behind and pretty much
asks Dumbledore, "You don't *believe* Black, do you?", bringing up the
Prank to remind Dumbledore that Black was capable of murder as a
sixteen-year-old.  If I remember correctly, Snape says this in a low
sort of voice--shocked, perhaps, by the thought that Dumbledore believes
Black over himself?  After Snape's years of faithful service?  

And then, after Black has escaped, when Snape, Fudge and Dumbledore come
into the hospital wing, JKR describes Dumbledore as actually *smiling*
(IIRC), an expression I assume he doesn't hide from Snape.  Considering
JKR has demonstrated Snape's ability at putting two and two together
("...as only Snape could...") I don't think that would be something he
missed, unless he was too hysterical to notice.

So, to sum up my point, it's not only the fact that the kids are
ungrateful and unconvinced of Black's guilt, *Dumbledore* is as well. 
The kids' doubt I could see Snape dealing with--after all, there isn't
any love lost between the Trio and Snape, and Snape did tell Fudge that
the kids were confunded.  But Dumbledore?  Snape has risked his neck for
Dumbledore and the Good Side, and Dumbledore has said that he trusts
Snape.  However, in this instance, it would seem to Snape that
Dumbledore *doesn't* trust him to be telling the truth over a dark
wizard and murderer.  That always struck me as quite a kick-in-the-groin
for poor Severus.

--Karen S., "Potions Student"




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Sun Feb 17 20:35:48 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 20:35:48 -0000
Subject: Canon evidence for Snape being a vampire
In-Reply-To: <20020217162127.82647.qmail@web9502.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a4p474+11241@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35370

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Andrew MacIan <andrew_macian at y...> wrote:
> Greetings from Andrew!
> > He referees a quidditch match, so he's touched by
> > daylight, vampires are
> > supposed to get killed by daylight.
> {snip}
> 
> This depends heavily on what mythos the vampire
> represents.  All of the ones that I know about in the
> 'real' world aren't affected by sunlight -if- they are
> 'awake' through dawn.  I have a feeling that this
> particular bit of lore is best attributed to
> Hollywood's re-writing of Stoker; anyone have a more
> definitive source?

Yeah, the whole "vampires can't tolerate daylight" business was 
started by the movie "Nosferatu."  It's not part of traditional 
vampire lore, or early vampire literature.  Stoker's Dracula was 
somewhat weaker in daylight, but could still function perfectly well.

Marina (who doesn't think Snape is a vampire)
rusalka at ix.net.com





From boggles at earthlink.net  Sun Feb 17 21:24:49 2002
From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 15:24:49 -0600
Subject: The Imperius Curse (was: Re: Ron Going To The Dark Side), and
 Snape on the Quidditch Pitch
In-Reply-To: <a4c09r+47ao@eGroups.com>
References: <a4c09r+47ao@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <f05010400b895c4467c60@[199.174.15.208]>

No: HPFGUIDX 35371

At 9:09 PM +0000 2/12/02, jenny_ravenclaw wrote:
>
>I see Ron mostly as weak.  In JKR's wizarding world, weak is a bad
>thing to be.  Ron cannot fight the Imperius Curse (baaaaaad sign).

Why does this paint him out as special?  Only three people so far 
have managed to throw of Imperius "on stage", as it were - Harry, 
Crouch Jr., and Crouch Sr.  In the second case, it took him eleven 
years to manage the feat.  In the third case, it took him several 
months, and drove him mad in the process.  All the discussions of it 
in GoF suggest, to me, that for a mere fourth-year student to be able 
to consistently throw it off, even with the coaching of someone who 
has already done so, is quite amazing.  _None_ of the other 
Gryffendors manage it in that lesson (and it takes Harry four tries 
to do it completely).  Of the three people we have who actually 
manage the feat, moreover, one is Good, yes, but one is Very Bad, and 
one is at best Deeply Questionable (unless you think that Crouch Sr. 
was justified in putting Sirius away without a trial).

Is there any evidence that being able to throw off the Imperius is at 
all common?  As powerful and competent a wizard as Lucius Malfoy 
claims he can't do it, that Voldemort's Imperio has him dancing like 
a puppet all through his Death Eater years - and while there are some 
people who don't believe the story, no one seems to disbelieve it on 
the grounds that Lucius should be able to throw the curse off.  Ditto 
for all the other DEs who pleaded bewitchment.

If not being able to throw off Imperius should make us suspect 
someone of being temptable to Voldie's side, we'd best worry about 
Dean Thomas, Lavender, and Neville as much as Ron.


At 9:32 PM +1100 2/13/02, Tabouli wrote:
>Snape may or may not have played Quidditch.  However, we *do* know 
>that he was jealous of James' Quidditch ability, whether because 
>James was better at it than him or because he didn't play Quidditch 
>at all (and resented the jock getting the girl of his dreams).

The way Lupin puts this in PoA suggests to me that Snape at least 
_wanted_ to play Quidditch.  Moreover, I doubt he'd have been allowed 
to referee back in PS/SS if he weren't intimately familiar with the 
rules of the game, and a reasonably good flyer.  The twins hit a 
Bludger at him, and he awards a penalty - it does _not_ say the 
Bludger actually hit him, so he appears to have at least been skilled 
enough to dodge.  (Either that, or George missed on purpose, which 
seems a bit out of character.)

So what position could he have played?

If we're meant to see Draco as his "reflection," was he a Seeker like Draco?

But Harry is James's reflection, and he was a Chaser (movie be 
damned), so to keep the parallelism, Snape must have been a Chaser, 
too, right?

But would that have produced this bitterness?  What position would 
have pitterd Snape against James in every match directly, with every 
score by James a failure of Severus's?

My prediction:  Severus Snape, Slytherin Keeper, 1973-1978.

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



From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Sun Feb 17 21:30:30 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 21:30:30 -0000
Subject: Evil Dude (filk)
Message-ID: <a4p7dn+ogeu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35372

Evil Dude (from GoF, Chap. 35)

(To the tune of In the Mood)

Hear the original at:

http://www.smickandsmodoo.com/aaa/lyrics/inthemood.htm

Dedicated to Mike Gray

THE SCENE: The DADA office. CROUCH JR has been given Veritaserum 
(which Snape keeps stored next to his collection of Glenn Miller 
CDs), and is being interrogated by DUMBLEDORE 

DUMBLEDORE (quietly): Can you hear me? 
CROUCH, JR.: Yes 
DUMBLEDORE: I would like you to tell us how you came to be here.  How 
did you escape from Azkaban?

CROUCH, JR. (music)
When my lovin' Daddy sent me to Azkaban
Mother intervened with quite an intricate plan
With some Polyjuice brew, we identities swapped
I exited in full view of those black-rob?d cops
Wasn't too long after that my mom passed away
As I sank beneath my father's all-controlling sway

I wanted to restore the Dark Lord to his own folk
But I was under lock and key by an elf and cloak 
At the Quidditch World Cup I broke free from my bonds
I took that opportunity to steal a wand
Frivolous Death Eaters that night suffered a scare
When I flung the skull and snake in the summer air

Dad got rude to our elf Wink `n'
>From our brood he sent her slinkin'
I'm renewed, so I was thinking
When back into my life came one evil dude, now 

(Segue back to the CROUCH residence a year earlier, with Crouch Sr. & 
JR.)

Late at home one evening there's a knock on our door

WORMTAIL (barging in)
Howdy there, it's Wormtail!

VOLDEMORT (likewise)
  			         And Lord Voldemort!
We ran into Ms. Jorkins (who's now sadly deceased)
We've come to get my most faithful of servants released

CROUCH , JR.
And very soon the father and son's roles were reversed

ALL
What a useful thing to know, the Imperius Curse!

(Segue back to the DADA office)

CROUCH, JR.
In the Moody residence we pulled off the switch
I'd his eye and peg leg, you can't tell which is which
So I came to Hogwarts teaching Dark Arts Defense
Gruff but kindly Auror, what a lethal pretense.
But Wormtail just couldn't do the Vigilance thing, 
And soon it was reported Dad had taken wing.

Dad escaped, such great persistence
Dad went mad, from his resistance
Voldy said with some insistence,
"Get rid of your dad as I got rid of Riddle"

I spied Dad, I had this map here
Potter left, Krum I attacked here
I slew Dad, to bone changed back here
And the Triwizards Trophy became a Portkey



(end music. CROUCH falls silent, an insane smile flickering across 
his face)

WINKY: Master Barty, you bad boy! That last stanza is not a proper 
rhyme!

  - CMC

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





From theennead at attbi.com  Sun Feb 17 21:45:31 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 21:45:31 -0000
Subject: Serpensortia -- the Dark Arts -- Divination
In-Reply-To: <004b01c1b554$5b7a3320$6937c2cb@price>
Message-ID: <a4p89r+ft6j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35373

On Serpensortia, Porphyria wrote:

> Is serpensortia a curse? I thought it was a conjuring of some sort. 

I don't know.  I'm very hazy on the distinction between curses and 
charms and hexes and jinxes and spells.  Not to mention 
conjurings.  ;-)

I just used the word "curse" there because it seems to me that when 
the characters discuss the sort of spells used in duels, or 
aggressive spells in general, they often use the term "curse."  And 
conjuring up an aggressive snake that then goes after the person at 
whom you've aimed your wand definitely seems aggressive and "curse-
ish" to me.  But I suspect that technically speaking, it's a charm.

> I agree that it's unlikely Draco could have busted this one out on 
> his own without coaching. I figured either, a) Slytherin love 
> practicing this one in the common room because it's their mascot 
> animal...

<sigh>  The poor Slytherin prefects.  What a terrible job they must 
have.  Just think of all the time they must spend disposing of all of 
those stray snakes that the younger students have conjured and then 
lost track of...

> ...or b) Snape did indeed teach it to him -- to smoke out Harry's 
> parseltongue abilities. 

And there's the question.

Tabouli wrote:

> Now this is something that has always intrigued me. What made Snape 
> suggest that particular spell? House pride, because it's a 
> serpentine Slytherin speciality? I mean, presumably he was 
> relishing the thought of deliberately and publicly putting Harry in 
> mortal danger, but was there any more to it? And when Harry turns 
> out to be a Parselmouth, Snape doesn't seem surprised... he
> looks "shrewd and calculating". Does Snape know something we don't? 
> (actually, he knows a helluva lot we would dearly like to know) Did
> he pick that spell in order because he wanted to test a theory he 
> had about Harry, or Voldemort, or the failed curse?


<Elkins volunteers to man the can(n)non>

Well, let's see what's actually there, shall we?  <sound of flipping 
pages>  Duelling Club scene, Duelling Club...oh, it's the name of the 
chapter...well, *that* makes it easy to find, doesn't it?  Ah.  Here 
we are.

Okay.  After dissuading Lockhart from using Longbottom and Finch-
Fletchley as his volunteer pair for a demonstration of spell-
blocking, Snape suggests Malfoy and Potter (it's the second time in 
this scene that Snape forces these poor kids to duel each other):

"'How about Malfoy and Potter?' said Snape with a twisted smile."

(Ah, those twisted smiles!)  

Lockhart fails to demonstrate blocking, Snape bends over and whispers 
the prompt in Draco's ear -- there's really nothing to go on in the 
description there.  When the snake actually appears, we get:

"'Don't move, Potter,' said Snape lazily, clearly enjoying the sight 
of Harry standing motionless, eye to eye with the angry snake.  'I'll 
get rid of it...'"

(Ah, those 'lazily's!)  

And then Lockhart jumps in and makes a mess of things, the snake gets 
infuriated and goes after Finch-Fletchley, Harry speaks to it in 
Parseltongue...lots of commotion.  But we don't see anything of Snape 
again until:

"Snape stepped forward, waved his wand and the snake vanished in a
small puff of black smoke.  Snape, too, was looking at Harry in an 
unexpected way: it was a shrewd and calculating look, and Harry 
didn't like it."

And that's pretty much it, when it comes to Snape's demeanor.  That's 
all we have to go on.

So...well, what do you all think?

It's certainly open to interpretation.  Personally, I have to say 
that it really doesn't look to me as if Snape's intention there was 
to smoke out Harry's parseltongue abilities.  It's highly subjective, 
of course, but what we are given there just doesn't leave me with the 
impression of Snape as a man awaiting the results of an experiment: 
he does not, for example, seem either surprised or disappointed when 
Harry freezes, rather than speaking to the snake initially.  I rather 
get the impression that he suggested Serpensortia merely as a way of 
entertaining himself.

He does seem to suspect where Harry might have come by his talent 
very quickly, though -- that "shrewd and calculating look" *is* 
suggestive -- and it wouldn't surprise me at all if he'd wondered 
that about Harry before.  But I just can't quite force myself to read 
that scene as 'Snape tests out his hypothesis.'  It simply doesn't 
ring true to me.

But of course, other mileages may vary.

About that "shrewd and calculating look," though.  If, as Tabouli 
suggests, Snape knows more than we might suspect about Voldemort or 
the failed curse, could this be due to his experience with the Dark 
Arts themselves?  Was there something about Voldemort's favored brand 
of Dark magic that might have made that odd form of soul-leakage that 
seems to have accompanied his failed AK a *more* likely side-effect 
for him than it would have been for, say, just some random wizard 
trying to use a Killing Curse on a mystically-protected baby 
Harry?

And what *are* the Dark Arts, anyway?


Porphyria wrote:

> Oh, I can't tell you how much it galls me that JKR has not provided 
> us with an adequate theory of the Dark Arts! I mean, what is it? 
> Are there only certain spells that qualify, or does it have more to 
> do with the intention of the caster? 

I'm relieved to hear that I'm not the only one vexed by this question.

Yes, what *are* the Dark Arts?  Are there forms of magic that are 
intrinsically 'Dark' -- that are, for example, spiritually corrupting
by their very nature?  Or is Darkness merely a matter of application,
the tool of magic used for evil ends?  Or is the term used loosely, to
refer both to a particular brand of magic and to criminally wicked
wizarding behavior?

Take the Unforgivebles, for example.  Their "Unforgivable" status is 
described in "Moody's" class as a matter of legal distinction: they 
are the spells the use of which is most severely punishable under 
Wizarding Law.  But are they also Dark in some metaphysical or 
spiritual sense?  Does one learn about them in a DADA class because 
only a "Dark" (ie, criminal) Wizard would be casting an illegal spell 
in the first place, making defending oneself against them DADA by 
default?  Or is there something intrinsically Dark about them apart
from their nasty effects?

Before Crouch authorized his Aurors to use the Unforgivables, were 
they allowed to kill in self-defense?  And if so, then were there non-
'Dark' lethal magics that they would have used, rather than the dread 
AK?  (Light and fluffy lethal magics, perhaps?)  Or would all magics 
designed to kill be designated 'dark' by default?

I've seen others speculate that the Unforgivables may be Dark because
they require a certain purity of intent: that to cast Cruciatus, for 
example, would require a focused and sincere desire to cause pain, to 
cast Imperius the desire to dominate, to cast AK the desire to kill.  
This would certainly seem to make them Dark by nature.  But if this 
were indeed the case, then I find myself wondering how they could 
possibly ever be demonstrated in a DADA class without grave suspicion 
falling upon the DADA instructors themselves.  We know that the 
Unforgivables are a regular part of the 6th Year Curriculum at 
Hogwarts.  Are they ordinarily never demonstrated, not even on 
spiders?

I find that unconvincing, somehow.


Porphyria:

> And all the DADA classes apart from "Moody's" seem to concern 
> themselves with dark creatures. Sure, defending against grindylows 
> is practical knowledge, but there mere condition of *being* a 
> grindylow does not constitute proficiency in a Dark Art. 

Well, if there is such a thing as intrinsically Dark magic, magic that
is potentially spiritually corrupting, rather than simply being a
matter of a powerful tool used to bad ends, then I could certainly 
understand why you might choose to teach your younger students 
Defense Against Dark Creatures first, before exposing them to Dark 
spells and such.  Learning how to defend yourself against a grindylow 
offers little in the way of seduction, as you cannot choose yourself 
to *become* a grindylow.  Learning how to defend yourself against a 
Dark spell, on the other hand, would place a certain degree of 
temptation in your path.

But it seems clear that even if some magic *is* intrinsically "Dark," 
it's still culturally acceptable to know it, so long as one never 
uses it -- or only uses it rarely, and for very good reasons.  When 
Professor Binns is telling his students about the Chamber of Secrets, 
and someone suggests that perhaps it's never been found because one 
would have to use Dark Magic to find the opening, Binns snaps back 
something along the lines of: Just because a wizard *doesn't* use 
Dark Magic doesn't mean that he *can't.*  (Sorry for the paraphrase: 
it's later now, and I've abandoned the canon, which I don't have at 
hand.)  The implication there, IIRC, was specifically that Dumbledore 
would know enough Dark Magic to have found the Chamber.  And there's 
implication of that sort in the very first chapter of the first book 
as well, when McGonagall goes gushing all over Dumbledore for 
being "too noble" to use all of the tools at his disposal.  

<Elkins pauses here with an expression of profound distaste, as she 
hates that scene with a cold and undying passion, and mere mention of 
it cannot help but recall to her mind the sensation of being forced 
to choke down huge unchewable wads of unseasoned plot exposition and 
undercooked characterization.  She gags, once, as the memory of  
McGonagall's fawning behavior floods her taste buds once more, but 
soon enough she has recovered and moves on...> 

The Dark Arts are still taught in wizarding schools outside of 
Britain.  Durmstrang still teaches them.  (Does Beauxbatons?)  My 
suspicion here is that Hogwarts only stopped teaching them, changing 
DA to DADA, upon Dumbledore's ascension to Headmaster -- this seems 
somewhat implied to me by Draco's little speech about how Daddy 
considered sending him off to Durmstrang, where the curriculum was 
not so restricted.

All of this combines in my mind to form the impression of a society 
that *does* consider Dark magic to be intrinsically dark -- 
potentially corrupting? deriving from Evil sources? -- but that is 
nonetheless not so nervous about its corrosive power that it 
considers knowing some Dark magic as necessarily all that terrible a 
thing.  Use of them would seem to be the sticking point.


> What exactly do these Dark Artists do? I realize that one can glean 
> a few ideas from outside sources (other fantasy novels, Wiccan 
> philosophy), but that doesn't cut it for me; I want a Potter-
> specific theory.

Yes!  I find the lack of magic theory in the books frustrating as 
well.  Of course I understand that Rowling can't very well go 
sticking treatises on the theory of magic in the Potterverse into the 
books, but it would at least be nice to know, say, what 
constitutes 'Dark Magic,' particularly as the importance of resisting 
its influence is such an important aspect of the story.

Well.  There are always hopes for future volumes.



About Divination, I wrote:

> > I've always liked to imagine that Divination is *not,* in fact, an
> > impractical field of magic at all, but that the only really 
> > reliable forms of Divination qualify as Dark Arts -- which is the 
> > reason that Dumbledore gets stuck with poor Trelawney and her 
> > once-a-decade prophecies. 

Porphyria asked:

> Are you suggesting that real, effective divination would be 
> unethical, and thus dark? Or something about the practice of it, 
> like necromancy, would be the darkening factor?

I was thinking the latter, myself.  (On a purely personal level, I'm 
not very comfortable with the notion that there might be anything 
intrinsically unethical about divination.)  

Trelawney's one "real" prediction that we see in canon seems to be a 
sort of mantic trance, a channeling or a possession.  She goes into a 
seizure, her voice is not her own, she has no memory of the event once
she has come out of the prophetic state.  (Technically I suppose, by 
the terminology of the 19th Century British Spiritualist Movement 
whose idiom Trelawney herself seems to favor, she isn't really 
a 'Seer' at all.  She would instead seem to be a 'Medium.')  

My impression there was that something was speaking *through* her, 
that the prophecy was really being delivered by an outside agent 
which had chosen to use poor Trelawney as its channel, or as 
its "horse."

And I'm not altogether certain how I feel about the alignment of that
outside agency.  

It refers to Voldemort as the "Dark Lord," for one thing, which often 
seems to be a marker of Darkness in the books.  Generally speaking, 
Good Guys don't call him that; his followers do.  And the entire tone 
of the prophecy, the choice of phrasing, well...

"It will happen tonight.  The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless, 
abandoned by his followers.  His servant has been chained these 
twelve years.  Tonight, before midnight...the servant will break free 
and set out to rejoin his master.  The Dark Lord will rise again with 
his servant's aid, greater and more terrible than ever he was.  
Tonight...before midnight...the servant...will set out...to 
rejoin...his master..."

"Alone and friendless?"  "Servant has been chained?"  "Greater and 
more terrible than ever he was?"

I just don't know about that voice.  Its sympathies seem to lie 
rather strongly with Voldemort, if you ask me.  It doesn't even sound 
much like it's delivering a warning at all; it sounds far more to me 
as if something out there is *exulting* over what's about to happen.

The possibility has occurred to me that really effective divination 
(for human beings, at any rate, as opposed to, say, Centaurs) might 
necessitate opening oneself up to outside influence as a regular and 
conscious practice -- actually *inviting* whatever is out there to 
use you as its horse -- and that far too many of the things that 
might choose to answer such an invitation could well be, like 
Trelawney's prophetic voice, Not Very Nice.  And while I can't claim
to know for certain what effects galloping around with Not Very Nice 
Things riding on your proverbial back might be, I strongly suspect 
that it wouldn't be very good for you.  Even aside from the obvious 
perils involved in allowing an unknown entity to hold your reins like 
that, it might also be somehow intrinsically corrupting.

Perhaps spiritual possession is the only truly reliable and effective 
form of Divination that human beings can manage?  The Centaurs 
obviously use astrology to great effect, but we've seen no evidence 
yet of any wizards doing so.  Perhaps all of the means of Divination 
that Trelawney favors -- crystal-gazing and tea-reading and astrology 
and the like -- are very weak tools in the hands of humans, while all 
of the more effective tools available to them involve dealing in one 
way or another with spiritual entities about which not very much is 
known and which are therefore highly suspect?

Just a thought.  But that would explain, to my mind, why Divination 
might have remained on the Hogwarts curriculum when it seems to be 
such a very ineffective and poorly-respected magical field: it is, in 
fact, *not* an ineffective branch of magic at all, but merely one 
whose only non-forbidden applications are also its least effective 
ones.

It would also, I think, add an additional level of explanation to 
Trelawney's own reaction to being told that she has just entered a 
trance state and delivered a prophecy.  It's not just that she 
doesn't believe it; she also doesn't *want* to believe it, because 
doing that sort of thing is suspect, Dark.

I wrote:

> > I like to think that at Durmstrang, say, Divination is a highly 
> > challenging and intellectual -- and *effective!* -- part of the 
> > curriculum. Why do I like to imagine this? I'm not sure. Maybe 
> > just because it would make Hermione so very *annoyed* if she
> > knew. ;-)

Porphyria said:

> She sure needs some angst in her life. Everyone else has some.

I really loved Eric's suggestion that Hermione needs to be confronted 
with a serious academic rival in the next book.  I'm plumping hard 
for that plotline, although I haven't the slightest idea how such an 
academic rivalry could be introduced at this stage in the game.  But 
Hermione needs Envy problems. Everyone else has had to struggle with 
envy, and I won't find it nearly so interesting if Hermione's envy 
problems prove to be sexual or romantic, or in any way purely 
relationship-based.  Ron has his money problems, and Harry has his 
various athletic competitions -- so why should the girl be the one 
mired down in the great emotional bog when it comes to her own
struggles with envy?  Just rubs me the wrong way, that does.


-- Elkins




From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Feb 17 22:29:42 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:29:42 -0000
Subject: Weasleys / Draco / Lucius
Message-ID: <a4pasm+mbif@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35374

Btw, my favorite canon animal may be the Muggle python who heads 
'back' to Brazil.

Barkeep wrote:

> Brother #1 (forgive me if I get the age order wrong):

I, and I think most of us, assume that Bill is oldest (not Charlie 
the dragon wrangler), based on Ron having mentioned Bill before 
Charlie when telling Harry he had five brothers. However, I don't 
think there is *clear* evidence in canon, and I have been wondering 
if they might ALSO be a pair of twins (not identical twins, of 
course).

> But then what happens? The Weasley's go on the offensive.

The Weasleys are going on the offensive *already* without any of them 
having been killed yet. At end of GoF, DUmbledore says "Molly, I can 
count on you and Arthur" and Bill is rushing around on Dumbledore's 
errands.

Unc Mark wrote:

> Just referreed a bizarre argument between 11yo niece and 13 yo
> nephew. Nephew is a Draco fan and goes as far as shipping Draco
> and Hermione because he saqys Draco warned Hermione at the World 
> Cup. (Snip) My Nephew, who refuses to believe that Draco is evil, 
> thinks he will reform when confronted by the true evil of Voldemort.

Those are both (or all three) popular beliefs in the fanfic world. 
Try reading Heidi Tandy for a well-written fic with that as the THEME 
(or THESIS, I don't know lit crit words). Many people hold these 
beliefs because of being in love with Draco. I am attempted to ask if 
you know your nephew's sexual orientation....  

Joris wrote:

> I actually think Lucius is the most evil character of the whole
> series, 

I also think that Lucius is the most evil character of the whole 
series, but my reasoning is not quite the same as yours. Voldemort is 
terribly evil, but I am sure he is insane, which reduces his fault in 
the matter. As for Lucius, it is not that he states beliefs which he 
doesn't feel (his true belief, to which he IS loyal, is "Everything 
for me"), but that he doesn't care about anyone but himself. I tried 
to make myself believe that he loves his wife and/or son, or at least 
a lover, but I can't make it seem plausible to me.

   




From pollux46 at hotmail.com  Sun Feb 17 22:43:18 2002
From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:43:18 -0000
Subject: SHIP: CUPID'SBLUDGER & Cupid's Snitch
Message-ID: <a4pbm8+hk6f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35375


Sigh! I knew this was going to happen. I turn my back from my 
favourite SHIP for one day to attend to responsibilities elsewhere 
and all hell breaks loose! I return to find what? Winged delinquents 
are sending Quidditch balls of all sorts whizzing around on deck left 
right and centre and the crew's in uproar led by a mutinous Elkins! 
Right, must take action.


Ah?hemm! Captain (unfortunately looking a great deal like Captain 
Pugwash in own mind and therefore not remotely threatening) clears 
throat, puts on ugliest scowl, glares darkly round at unruly sailors 
and thunderously booms out:


--EXCELLENT! Brilliant, Amazing! Elkins where did you come up with 
all of that? Astounding! I take my hat of to you, really I do!


Unfortunately however I don't buy a word of it. No, not one! I'm 
afraid Cupid's Snitch has me utterly unconvinced. That oughtn't 
affect you of course. C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. is a fully 
democratic SHIP and freedom of opinion is the wind in it's sails. So 
you're free to think what you will and say what you think and I to 
hope I won't be made to walk the plank for not agreeing.


(For those poor nonplussed souls out there who just joined the group 
or this thread of conversation and therefore don't have the foggiest 
what I'm going on about (I've been there?in fact I still am there a 
lot of the time) C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. stands for Contrary to 
Unrequited Passion Infelicitously Devouring Severus, Black's Love of 
Unknown Damsel Gets Expected Response (from said damsel that is to 
say). Cupid's Snitch is a variant on this idea cooked up by Elkins.)


Before I attend to Cupid's Snitch however one thing:


Cindy wrote:

>I'm having trouble with the idea that Sirius would be so upset by 
>being caught kissing his own girlfriend, Dead Sexy Florence of 
>Slytherin, that he would hex someone, carry a grudge for decades, 
and 
>hate Snape even after he and Florence drifted apart.

and:

>I have trouble with the idea that a high-school 
>crush can motivate otherwise balanced people to behave in bizarre, 
>hateful ways years later and can mold whether they become Good or 
>Bad. No, I think we need something Really Big to explain the 
>Sirius/Snape/Florence/Bertha grudge match.

You're right. It isn't logical that Sirius should hate Snape for life 
solely because Snape came between him and a girl at Hogwarts. But I 
don't see that there ever was a problem explaining Sirius's post PoA 
abhorrence of Snape. Isn't the Shrieking Shack scene enough for that? 
Snape messed up Sirius's chance to clear his name and live a quiet 
life with his godson and was about to hand him over to the Dementors. 
If Sirius holds a bit of a grudge for this in GoF who can blame him? 
What needs explaining is not this so much as the Prank. What could 
Snape have done that got to Sirius so much he thought that only 
sending him on a blind date with a werewolf would be adequate 
payback? The way I see it post?Hogwarts and till the Shrieking Shack 
Sirius doesn't give much thought to Snape whatsoever. But he didn't 
like him too much in the first place, for whatever reason, and after 
the Shrieking Shack his schoolboy grudge resurfaces with a vengeance. 
Hence as far as Sirius is concerned that Really Big something is 
already given by Canon and whether they turned Good or Bad is 
determined solely from them themselves ("It's our choices, Harry, 
that show what we truly are far more than our high school crushes.")


And now to business:


I have various objections to Cupid's Snitch, some fair and a great 
deal completely unfair. I'll start with the fair.


I agree that there must be a reason Mrs Lestrange's first name is 
omitted. It struck me as odd from the very first time I read the 
book. But it seems to me that it's more JKR trying to hide something 
than Sirius. He passes by the name too flippantly for me to think it 
means anything to him. Not a pause, not a frown, not the slightest 
sigh, even when he tells of her ending up in Azkaban. Remember that 
when Harry asked Lupin whether he knew Black at Hogwarts during the 
anti?Dementor lessons if you stopped to think about it it was pretty 
obvious Lupin's acquaintance with Black was going to turn out to be 
major. He's all like "Or, at least I thought I knew him
" weep, weep. 
Sirius just ticks off the Lestranges along with the rest of them. 
They're not even significantly placed: not first, not last, just 
middle.


As for Dumbledore and the Pensieve, I agree with Cindy. You say:

>He remembers asking her: "But why, Bertha, . . . why did you have to 
follow him in the first 
>place? The anguished tone seems rather out of keeping for a simple 
matter of 
>a fast hex, doesn't it? No, Dumbledore's agony there arises from his
>wise suspicion that this entire Sirius Black affair is going to 
prove 
>the last straw for the unstable young Florence, that it will be the 
>catalyst which will push her right over the edge into Darkness.


But Dumbledore doesn't * remember* saying that phrase. He says it for 
the first time there in front of Harry. His anguish arises from his 
contemplation of Bertha's dangerous combination of faults that was 
evident already from her Hogwart's years and the fear of where they 
might have led her in latter life, a fear that's been weighing 
heavily on his mind since he heard of her disappearance.


If Dumbledore really had at that stage simply by being informed of 
Bertha's spying on Sirius and Florence kissing realized how 
detrimental this would prove to be for all parties concerned, then he 
should fire Trelawney (he should do that anyway) and take over 
teaching Divination himself, for if that doesn't mark a true seer I 
don't know what does. How was Dumbledore to know that Sirius and 
Florence were really serious about each other and not just fooling 
around behind the greenhouse like every other couple caught there? 
(The greenhouse is the Hogwart's students' making out hideout). How 
was he to know that their relationship is clandestine? How was he to 
know that Bertha's nosiness would end up in the couples splitting up 
due to lack of support from friends? How was he to know Florence 
would then be led to gloomy ponderings resulting in twisted appetite 
for Cruciating Aurors all the way to cuckoo land? How's he... you 
know what Elkins? There's just too many of these so I'll just stop 
here.


Another problem is a great inconsistency of character exhibited by 
Sirius and Florence. Are they strong or are they weak? Would Sirius 
really let his friends rule his love life? I really can't see James 
and Remus forcing him to break it up with Florence anyway and as for 
Peter's irritating piping, well, the obvious answer's : "At least 
I've got a * girl*, Wormtail, so shut up". And if Florence's brooding 
spell is due to a lack of a safety net of friends, then why give up 
on the one guy who cared for her in the first place? Because people 
she wasn't too close to anyway took the mickey out of her for it?


Another thing that occurred to me is, is it likely that Slytherin 
would have acquired it's evil reputation yet? When Hagrid says that 
there hasn't been a wizard that went bad that didn't come from 
Slytherin, did he mean ever or just in Voldemort's era? If it's the 
latter then perhaps Slytherin doesn't have a bad name yet, for all 
the Death Eater's identities and therefore their house origin were 
not revealed till after his fall. So why should Sirius and Florence's 
love be Forbidden?


On to the next objection. Cupid's Snitch does not explain what all 
these theories set out to explain in the first place, namely why did 
Snape cross over to the sunny side of the street after all? What's 
the big, hush?hush reason Dumbledore trusts Snape so much? Did 
Dumbledore tell Harry that that was between himself and Professor 
Snape because the alternative was to make a fool of himself by 
saying "Well, Severus thought that as he doesn't happen to have the 
hots for any Death Eaters at the moment he might as well do the right 
thing, so I took him on at Hogwarts as long he agreed to let me know 
as soon as he develops another crush on a Voldemort supporter". 
Doesn't really work somehow.


And one more thing: Florence must have been a splendid actress. 
Sirius was so into her and never realized she was heading right down 
the path that leads to You?Know?Who's front door? Maybe Florence 
didn't have a chance to elaborate on exactly what form of torturous 
death she thinks would be the most enjoyable way of wiping out 
Mudbloods while Sirius's tongue was stuck down her throat, but if he 
didn't really know her and hadn't really looked any deeper than how 
hot she looked in her drop?dead sexy, midnight blue, very tight dress 
robes, then could he really continue caring so much for over a decade?


I think that's all. Phew!!! It'd better be all I can hear you 
thinking
 But I'll give it to you Elkins. It took me almost a day to 
come up with these arguments, and I guess they're not completely 
foolproof either. One can always come up with counter arguments. I 
guess it all comes down to what your own personal tastes are. It goes 
against all my instincts to accept that Sirius had a girlfriend that 
went Wrong and that's really what my objections boil down to.


You might be wondering what became of my unfair arguments. Well they 
get a post of their very own (this one's getting far too long) that 
will appear after I've had a good night's sleep. They're unfair 
because they expect Cupid's Snitch to answer questions 
C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. and it's mother theory 
E.L.G.I.N.M.A.R.B.L.E.S. do, even though I have not yet presented 
these questions, or for that matter E.L.G.I.N.M.A.R.B.L.E.S.

Ah! Before I forget! Abigail wrote:

>(Hence, by the way, my objection to 
>naming said sister Florence - somehow, Florence Snape doesn't quite 
work, you
>feel as though her name ought to 
>start with an S.)

But Florence didn't appear out of thin air you know. That is in fact 
the name of the girl Bertha caught kissing whoever?it?is. It says so 
in GoF. As a matter of fact however I myself have serious issues with 
naming Sirius's or Snape's or anybody's girlfriend Florence: I don't 
like the name (my apologies to any Florences out there). But thinking 
about it and what it might mean lead me to this sequence of thoughts: 
Florence - -> Italy- -> the Renaissance - -> Art. Maybe Florence will 
introduce the magical world of Art to the series! After all JKR does 
draw herself. Oh, blimey!!! Tidal brainwave just 
C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. on the star board bow sending Captain 
reeling and leaving her slumped against cabin wall dazed by own 
brilliance! How about this: Florence indeed very artistic. In fact 
passionate with painting since Hogwart's days. And Harry wandering 
around castle in his fifth year unknowingly comes across one of her 
works, stops to admire it and ? wait for it? gets sucked once more 
into alternate universe of another's thoughts, where following 
Florence around he comes across his Mum and Dad thus learning much 
more of their lives as we know he must in OoP!!! Plausible?


Charis Julia, who has at long last finished her exams and can happily 
divide her time between partying and Harry Potter at least for the 
next couple of days. Hooray!!!





From nicholson_el at hotmail.com  Sun Feb 17 21:47:15 2002
From: nicholson_el at hotmail.com (sothoii)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 21:47:15 -0000
Subject: DADA Teachers
In-Reply-To: <EMEFJEGPENOCIMPKEAHJAEFACDAA.chspnll@pacific.net.in>
Message-ID: <a4p8d3+3i1q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35376

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Chris Parnell" <chspnll at p...> wrote:
> Can anyone tell me if JKR told that the next book has a female DADA
> teacher?
> This is verifiable?
> 
> Or, is this simply a generally accepted conclusion by fans?
> 
> 
> CP

According to the 'Harry Potter Lexicon' 
http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/ the next DADA teacher will be 
female.  It gives the source as J.K. Rowling in America Online Chat, 
October 2000.  Other than that, I know of no verification, however is 
has not been refuted by anyone that I know of.

EN





From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Feb 17 23:39:03 2002
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 17 Feb 2002 23:39:03 -0000
Subject: File - netiquette2.txt 
Message-ID: <1013989143.55442726.86840.m12@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35377


NETIQUETTE TIPS FOR HP for GROWNUPS

Harry Potter for Grown Ups is a very high-volume list; so it's important that 
members observe a few rules to help us all navigate through the ocean of 
messages.
 
Members, new and old, are requested to observe certain rules of 'netiquette' and 
good practice, as outlined below.
 
ATTENTION! 

Please note that we have separate club areas for OT posts, Movie-related 
discussions and Announcements:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Announcements

You will need to join OT Chatter if you want to submit an off-topic message to 
the group, Movie if you want to discuss the Harry Potter film(s) and Announcements if you have an announcement.

When you first join the list, you will be on Moderated status.  If it is 
necessary to reject any of your posts, it will be because they have not taken
into account one or more of the rules listed here.  It is, therefore, imperative
that you familiarise yourself with these Netiquette Tips before joining the
discussions.

If you need any advice or clarification at any stage, please don't hesitate to
contact the Moderators and List Elves at hpforgrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com 
 
[Moderators exit, stage left, cackling...]
 
IF YOU HAVEN'T POSTED HERE BEFORE...

Please read the VFAQ (Very Frequently Asked Questions) document in our Files 
area before posting to the group. The answers to many burning newbie questions can be found in this document, and it will save time for everyone.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/VFAQ.htm

It's also helpful to read a few days' worth of messages before posting your own. 
You can do this either by "lurking" (reading messages, but not writing them) for a few days, or by going back through the most recent messages (a daunting task, with such an active group). This way, you'll get a "feel" for the group, and you can make sure you're not repeating something that has been posted recently by someone else. 

If you ask burning questions in your first post, make sure you indicate that 
extra content in the heading and don't just call it "Hi from a newbie!" 


USE/NOTE PREFIXES FOR SOME TOPICS

SHIP: discussion of ships (real or potential romantic relationships among the 
characters)

Please note that if your ship post doesn't use examples from the books (canon), 
it belongs on OT-Chatter rather than the main group. 

FF: discussion of fan fiction or imaginary scenarios.

Please note that these discussions belong on OT-Chatter rather than the main 
group.

ADMIN: 'I must once more ask for your attention, while I give out a few 
notices.' [Dumbledore, GoF, Chap 12] - Important announcements from the Moderators.
 

KEEP THE SUBJECT LINE RELEVANT TO THE CONTENT OF THE POST 

Message board conversations, like "real life" ones, will often drift from one 
subject to another. If the subject line does not change to fit the direction of the conversation, it can frustrate the reader.
 
When replying to a message, please take the time to check the subject line and 
make sure it still matches your post. For example, if the subject line says: "RE: Who's going to die in the next book?" and the topic has segued into a character matchmaking debate (with no mention of death), it's time to change the subject line! 

Spare a thought for the people who are busy preparing FAQ essays for the club - they have to scan all the messages for relevant content, so it isn't very helpful if your post is headed "Digest #345" or "A question."

 
CLEARLY DISTINGUISH YOUR OPINIONS/THEORIES FROM FACTS

If you are expressing an opinion or espousing a pet theory, be sure that the 
other readers will recognize it as an opinion or theory. Using phrases such as IMO (in my opinion), "I believe," "This is all speculation but I think... ," etc. will make it clear that your statements are not necessarily based on facts from the books (canon). It can be very confusing for everyone if someone puts forth a theory without any qualifying language.

 
KEEP YOUR POSTS ON TOPIC
 
In such a large and active group, it's easy for discussions to go off on a 
tangent. If a couple of you find something in common other than Harry Potter, wonderful! Getting to know people is, perhaps, the best thing about clubs. But if you find your discussion getting away from the main point of the club, please continue it off-list.


BANNED TOPICS 

The banned discussions on this list fall into three categories: 

(1) The Holocaust: Discussion of historical parallels is perfectly fine, 
including historical parallels to WWII in the HP series, but please avoid discussion of the Holocaust specifically. 

(2) Politics (especially current US & UK politics), not including speculation 
about Wizarding World politics.  
 
(3) Richard Abanes' book "Harry Potter and The Bible".


AVOID ONE-LINE AND ULTRA-SHORT POSTS

Our message volume is sometimes very high, so one-line posts can push the 
numbers through the roof. Please take a moment to think about the following guidelines:-

- Consider expanding on your point. For example, if you are posing a 
question about the HP books ("What about so-and-so?"), could you add some thoughts of your own to lead off any discussion?

- Consider combining your shorter points/responses with a few others in a 
multi-topic post, making sure the topic line indicates this. However, if your point is substantive (or just plain lengthy), it is best to give it space on its own to make the thread easier to follow.

- Try to avoid "me too!" and "LOL!" posts that have absolutely no other 
content.

Sometimes a brief response is perfectly acceptable; for example, if you are 
correcting an error someone has made and do not have much else to say (e.g.  "You cannot apparate into Hogwarts!") or giving information that you don't want to bury in another message ("The link to that article about Dumbledore's socks is at http://www.anyoldwebsite.com").


TAKE CARE WHEN RESPONDING TO POSTS

If you are replying to a message, please indicate the name of the person who 
wrote the original and include any relevant segments of their post, or a brief summary of their point(s). 

At the same time, please try to delete any parts of the original post that are not relevant to your point(s), especially if the original was really long! Please avoid putting your reply at the end of a very long quoted segment unless absolutely necessary. In most cases, it will be easy enough to delete some or all of the quoted material.

Remember, also, that if you respond in a fresh post rather than using the 
'reply' button, your response will not appear in the "replies to this message" in any search. 

In general, if someone asks a question that has a unique answer, please try to check through the message headers to see if anyone else has responded to it before posting the answer. It's understandable that several people may dash off a response just after the original message, but there should be no need for further posts after that. 

 
TAKE THE TIME TO PROOFREAD YOUR POSTS 

If you're used to forums where speed is important (chat rooms, role playing 
games, etc.), it's easy to fall out of the habit of proofreading. Here, however, your post will be as relevant in five minutes (or, usually, even in five hours) as it is now. 

Before hitting the 'send' button, please take a few minutes to look over your post and correct any typos, spelling/punctuation errors, or problems with sentence structure or capitalization. This will make it much easier to read and help in getting across your point. 

Please avoid using all lower case letters or, worse still, all CAPITAL LETTERS. 

 
BE CONSIDERATE OF OTHER MEMBERS' FEELINGS 

If you disagree with someone's message, no matter how strongly, remember to 
respect the other person's right to his or her own opinion. If you do wish to refute the post, do so gently, by building up your own case, rather than just knocking down the other person's. And never attack your fellow club members (name calling, personal remarks, etc). 

Thanks!! 

>From your Magical Moderators
HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com





From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Feb 17 23:39:02 2002
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 17 Feb 2002 23:39:02 -0000
Subject: File - VFAQ.htm 
Message-ID: <1013989142.55442551.86840.m12@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35378

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020217/49799631/attachment.html>

From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com  Sun Feb 17 19:11:06 2002
From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 19:11:06 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] DADA Teachers - Confirmation 
References: <EMEFJEGPENOCIMPKEAHJAEFACDAA.chspnll@pacific.net.in>
Message-ID: <003701c1b7e6$f3d70280$3a97bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 35379

Can anyone tell me if JKR told that the next book has a female DADA
teacher?
This is verifiable?

Or, is this simply a generally accepted conclusion by fans?


CP


Apparently JKR has made a nubmer of statements on Book Five all of which were listed on the Harry Potter Galleries site (which I can't find now).  Amongst the things she says is that DADA will be female this time, also there will be an important death (so my prediction that Lupin could die is still valid even if he IS heavily involved throughout the book....).  There were a number of interesting predictions most of which slipped out of my left ear some time ago sorry.............


Felicia Rickmann



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





From msn.tsf at hccnet.nl  Sun Feb 17 21:32:45 2002
From: msn.tsf at hccnet.nl (Yoris)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:32:45 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] 1000 hogwarts students, but so little in harry's year, my opinion
Message-ID: <001401c1b7fa$a3dbc2c0$9600000a@NEWPC>

No: HPFGUIDX 35380

Harry was born in the period Voldemort 'ruled' the wizzard-world, just as most of the kids currently at Hogwarts.
Imagine yourself in a world of panic, like the second world war, you don't know what's gonna happend to the world and to your life... would you chose to have a baby in those hard times? A baby you don't know of what future it's gonna have, if it'll be a slave for Voldemort?

So normally Hogwarts has a lot more students but because now the Voldemort-generation is at school there are far less kids, because nobody wanted their children to have maybe/probably a horrible future.

At least, that's what logical to me.
hmm I'm only in this list for 2 days and I already made 3 post, it all seems so obvious to me, I don't see why you don't get it! (or maybe my subject has been discussed for 1000's of times but I just don't know)



Joris


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





From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Feb 18 00:04:54 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:04:54 -0000
Subject: Going Wrong / Florence (was: SHIP: CUPID'SBLUDGER & Cupid's Snitch
In-Reply-To: <a4pbm8+hk6f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4pgf6+ondo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35381

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "charisjulia" <pollux46 at h...> wrote:
 
> Another thing that occurred to me is, is it likely that Slytherin 
> would have acquired it's evil reputation yet?

I always get the impression that it has been Traditional, for 
centuries, since the Founders' time, for Gryffindors and slytherins 
to hate each other. They don't need any reason beyond that their two 
founders were rivals to be top dog. 

> And one more thing: Florence must have been a splendid actress. 
> Sirius was so into her and never realized she was heading right
> down the path that leads to You?Know?Who's front door? (snip) It
> goes  against all my instincts to accept that Sirius had a 
> girlfriend that went Wrong and that's really what my objections 
> boil down to.

Sirius had a close friend who went Wrong, and never suspected. I 
don't think that Sirius had a steady girlfriend at all, but if he 
did, she *could* have gone bad. People do change. Okay, I allow as 
how we didn't see Wormtail display the kind of fanatic devotion to 
Voldemort that the presumable Mrs. Lestrange did, but people *do* 
change, sometimes into fanatics. I don't think Mrs. Lestrange's first 
name was Florence, unless JKR had a vicious personal enemy named 
Florence who gave her all kinds of bad connotations on the name, and 
I don't think Sirius was involved with the future Mrs. Lestrange 
(okay, maybe for a quicky, as I'm one of those who consider her 
Dead(ly) Sexy), but it *could* be that Mrs. Lestrange didn't care 
about purity of blood and wasn't especially into physical sadism, but 
simply became addicted to the pursuit of immortality, and believed 
that a good bit of killing was needed for that goal. 

If someone kissing Florence behind the greenhouses has to be 
essential to the plot (and I admit that JKR does drop Clues), and 
the way in which she must be essential is to explain The Prank, she 
could have been Sirius's KID SISTER, sneaking around behind Sirius's 
back with Sirius's enemy Severus. When Sirius heard from Bertha, he 
would have had words with Sis (he would start by telling her that 
she's too young and innocent to recognise a Bad Man who intends to 
harm her, and end up roughly washing her so she can learn the value 
of cleaniness and not touch anything so GREASY) and fisticuffs with 
Severus. Then when he soon (days) after ran into Severus trying to 
get into the Whomping Willow tunnel, they were all primed to have a 
quarrel in which Sirius became angry enough to tell him which bump to 
press to quiet the Whomping Willow. 

> Florence - -> Italy- -> the Renaissance - -> Art. Maybe Florence 
> will introduce the magical world of Art to the series! 

Umm, remember Firenze the centaur? What's in a Name 
http://www.theninemuses.net/hp/ says:
"Firenze is the Italian name for Florence, Italy. Thanks to Jenna for 
making the connection to Galileo Galilei, who was buried in Firenze, 
and arguably the greatest astronomer who ever lived. This seems 
fairly appropriate for a stargazing centaur."  Maybe Florence is the 
future Professor Sinistra. Maybe Florence (whether or not Sinistra) 
is half-centaur (cute horse ears, tail, and hind hooves, like Greek 
Silenos) and that is why it is considered so embarrassing to kiss 
her...





From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Mon Feb 18 00:11:21 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:11:21 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore (Was:Could the Stone have been Not Destroyed?)
In-Reply-To: <F186TRhlQnNE6f17ro4000012a7@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a4pgr9+kkrc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35382

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Kyli Wayment" <k_wayment at h...> wrote:

> that were going to try, and instead of stopping us, he just taught
us enough 
> to help. I don't think it was an accident that he let me find out
how the 
> mirror worked....."
>   So, that may mean exactly what comes to the brain, but, if yout
hink about 
> it, it kind of sounds like Dumbledore *knew* the Stone would be
gone after 
> by Voldemort, so he practically told Harry that he could get it.

FWIW,  D'dore has a lot of these "insights." Note he wasn't too 
surprisedabout  Trelawney's revelation, and even added some 
things himself -- like the connection between Scabbers and Harry, 
with the implications of having saved a wizard's life. I'm guessing 
Dumbledore himself is a pretty accomplished seer.  He just knows 
more than we see him finding out. Some could come from backstory, 
like hard facts about magical theory.  But how does he know exactly 
what to say to Harry and Hermione as he sends them on their way 
to save Sirius and Beaky, especially with a time loop involved?

I think Dumbledore knows how all this is going to come out, 
perhaps better than JKR does at the moment.

tex





From tabouli at unite.com.au  Mon Feb 18 00:25:46 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:25:46 +1100
Subject: The Cat Princess, Violence Doesn't Pay...
Message-ID: <005101c1b813$0821b240$7a22ddcb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35383

Felicia:
> Mrs Norris gets my vote, it depends what you call a wizarding character after all,  Argus Filch is a squib so can't do wizzarding stuff.and I don't think Mrs Norris is an animagus (well there 's an idea - probably at least a year old on this list - Tabouli probably thinks she is a part-time Severus Snape clone ;-))

No, no, no... you obviously haven't been reading the FLIRTIAC posts!  I, Tabouli, think Mrs Norris is not an Animagus (who would have control over her shape transformations) but a human being under a curse or enchantment, like the Frog Prince (the Cat Princess?)

My favorite theory is that she's Filch's lover, cursed by her husband when he caught them together (hm... maybe Filch should try kissing her!  Or, as the fairy tale actually went, throwing her against the wall...), hence F.L.I.R.T.I.A.C. (Filch's Lover Is Regretting Transformation Into A Cat), but it could be something else.  Perhaps she's a spy sought by Voldemort, who is secretly being hidden by Dumbledore disguised as the caretaker's cat, where she can exercise her spying skills for his benefit.  Perhaps she's Mrs Figg (though I hope not - no more unregistered Animagi *please* JKR...).

If, of course, FLIRTIAC is correct, the person who, under great stress, finally does magic late in life would probably be Filch, of course.  Maybe someone will threaten to AK his beloved Mrs Norris, and in a last, frantic, furious burst of energy, he casts aside his Quikspell handbook and gets it right at last, turning her back into a yellow-eyed, thin woman in late middle age, with dust coloured hair...

Elkins:
> She thrashes wildly for a few moments then freezes, staring in 
disbelief at the bloodied owl feathers -- the bloodied and yet 
monstrously *familiar* owl feathers -- from which her bonds would 
seem to be crafted.

"I--" she gasps, a look of sick horror slowly spreading across her 
face.  "Errol?"  And then a hoarse, a disbelieving whisper: "*Pig*?"

"NO!" she screams, struggling madly to free herself from the remains 
of these cruelly- and gratuitously-sacrificed minor characters.  
"NO!  Oh my God, Tabouli, what have you *done?*  MURDERER! 
MADWOMAN!!  FIEND!!!!"<

(Tabouli casts aside her captain's uniform and dons a hood and swirling black cape, as worn by all good Evil Overladies, and practises her "Bwa ha ha"s).  Sometimes, she sneers in oracular tones, it takes a personal sacrifice to teach bloodthirsty ambush supporters that Violence Doesn't Pay.  An eye for an eye, FEATHERBOAS!  Bwa ha ha ha ha!


Elkins (quoting Cindy):
>> What we have here is a sneak attack. I can't really deny that Lupin 
>> has Edge.
>
>'Sneak attack?'  But Edge is *good,* Cindy.  Edge is really really *good.*

Edge is definitely good.  Bland, nice, heroic types... pah!

Tabouli
(taking out her PACMAN badge (Perfectly Angelic Characters Make Awful Fiction) and pinning it proudly on her swirling black cloak)


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




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Mon Feb 18 00:25:00 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 00:25:00 -0000
Subject: Was someone splinched himself on Privet Drive?
In-Reply-To: <a4mgk5+105og@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4phks+c573@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35384

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "adi82t" <Adi99 at n...> wrote:
> Harry imagines "a pair of legs and an eyeball 
> lying abandoned on the pavement of Privet Drive".
> The eyeball that Harry imagines is also a suspicious thing. When I 
> read that at the first time, I instantly thought about muddy. Maybe 
> he was the one who splinche himself?

I guess you mean Moody.  *One* leg and an eyeball I'd go for.
But Moody shows up with only one wooden leg.  Mabe one leg was 
salvagable? OTOH, that may have been a mistake of Harry's
infant memory.


Even then, 'tis intriguing.  But what would Moody be doing 
there? The Aurors' Big Enchilada just murdered two popular 
wizards and then vanished.  Moody might have some concerns
for Harry, but wouldn't he have left him to other capable hands
and continued a pursuit of LV?

Tex, up past bedtime, again, and late for my meds.





From ladjables at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 18 00:53:58 2002
From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 16:53:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Musings on Draco /that pesky wand
In-Reply-To: <a4nqtk+l8hu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020218005358.80694.qmail@web20408.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35385

Hmm, what am I doing here?  I'm supposed to be Draco's
most strident opponent and say ignorance is no excuse
for his behaviour, a la Liz!  By the way, thanks for
your comments Liz!
  
--- uncmark <uncmark at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just referreed a bizarre argument between 11yo niece
> and 13 yo nephew. Nephew is a Draco fan and goes as
> far as shipping Draco and Hermione because he saqys
> Draco warned Hermione at the World Cup. 
> As I remember it, Draco warned Harmione to "Watch
> out if you don't want everyone to see your 
> knickers!" 

uncmark, I think your nephew's very clever.  You
should listen to him, he knows how teenage boys think!
 I remember reading this and thinking exactly along
the same lines.  Well, I'm not a 13 year old boy, but
I did wonder for a minute if Draco had started to
notice Hermione as a girl first, and a mudblood
second.

uncmark again: 
> It's too far a stretch to think Draco has feelings
> for Hermione especially with his treatment of her in
> Ch0fS "Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers first!"

You know, it actually isn't.  Draco's prejudice
doesn't preclude normal, human, adolescent emotions. 
Hormones, those hormones determine feelings for the
opposite/same sex!  It's not rare for a prejudiced
teen to have a crush on someone from another
race/ethnicity/gender, because he simply can't help
the way he feels!  But, on the flip side, realization
of such feelings may lead to a more virulent form of
prejudice, especially if the person experiences
self-loathing, and/or is even rejected by the object
of his affections.  The suppression of anger and shame
in a prejudiced mind must be like a powder keg about
to go off. So while D/H isn't impossible, Hermione
could also find herself the victim of unrequited love!
 Talk about putting a fatal spin on the Hermione/Draco
romance.
 
> My Nephew, who refuses to believe that Draco is
> evil, thinks he will  reform when confronted by the
> true evil of Voldemort.   Interesting concept. 
> Consider that Little Draco has probably been 
> indoctrinated with LV propaganda from Lucius from an
> eatly age(as has  C&G). Draco seems the most 
> intelligent of the three, but can anyone 
> make a case for redemption?

Erm, well, since redemption is about delivering from
evil and all that, who would make a better candidate
than Draco, ignorant child of aristocratic bigots?  He
is, after all, still a child, and as far as I'm
concerned still teetering on the precipice overlooking
damnation.  And even if you fall, you can cling on for
dear life.  I'll try to dispense with the bad
metaphors.  My point simply is that Draco is as
acceptable a subject for redemption as anyone who is
being led astray.  As you've said, he's been spoon-fed
his parents' "values", but he may find himself in a
position one day where he realizes it isn't worth
leading a life full of hate.  We'll just have to wait
and see what JKR does with him.   

On Voldemort's wand: 
>mariahisabel wrote: 
>OTOH, I could buy the idea of it being hidden, but
>IMO that would be too risky for Peter seeing as
>anyone could find it.  

Not necessarily, in fact you've given me an idea. 
Perhaps no-one was holding the wand and the wand WAS
indeed hidden-magically.  And maybe we keep thinking
of Voldemort as an ordinary wizard and not the
powerful Voldemort who has exceeded normal wizarding
limits.  I mean, he's conquered death, he has even
preserved his 16 year old self in a diary.   Who's to
say he couldn't find a way of hiding his wand if he
was incapacitated?  I imagine a wand is destroyed or
disintegrates whenever a wizard or witch dies.  But V
didn't die, and maybe his wand, his magical
fingerprint, carries some of his special powers. 
Well, why not, his diary did!  Ok, how about a more
mundane explanation?  Upon V's disembodiment, Wormtail
activated a homing device so the wand would reveal
itself to V once he was resurrected in bodily form. 
Ok, maybe not, but if asked JKR can always say normal
wand rules don't apply to V's wand, because it's V's
wand.   

Ama, weaver of ridiculous theories.  But remember!
Even a broken clock is right at least once or twice...
 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com



From porphyria at mindspring.com  Mon Feb 18 03:54:17 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 19:54:17 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Serpensortia -- Scars
In-Reply-To: <a4p89r+ft6j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2EDB1C1C-2423-11D6-B22D-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35386

On Serpensortia, I asked:
> > Is serpensortia a curse? I thought it was a conjuring of some sort.

And Elkins replied:
> I don't know.? I'm very hazy on the distinction between curses and
> charms and hexes and jinxes and spells.? Not to mention
> conjurings.? ;-)

Well, from what I've made of the Lexicon (thank you, Steve), I get the 
impression that curses have a direct, physical, harmful effect on the 
cursee (as do their lesser equivalents, hexes and jinxes), whereas 
conjuring creates something new out of thin air. Charms would sort of be 
the exact opposite of curses in that they have a positive or neutral 
direct physical effect on the charmee.

I'm inclined to make the distinction because, really, I'm wondering why, 
of all things, that Snape/Draco would choose this particular spell to 
use against Harry in a duel. It doesn't harm Harry in any way, and Snape 
never had any intention of allowing the snake to harm Harry; he steps in 
with the purpose of dispelling the thing immediately after Harry proves 
to have no idea of how, magically, to deal with it. If Snape merely 
wanted to see Harry terrified and humiliated (and I won't say that he 
doesn't), it seems like they could have picked a proper curse that 
actually would hurt him, or at least make mushrooms sprout all over his 
face. And wouldn't that be more entertaining? After all, Draco has Harry 
at a disadvantage; Snape knows that Lockhart had utterly failed to teach 
Harry how to defend himself and Draco isn't afraid to cast on the count 
of two. So I guess my question is, why, out of all the spells in the 
Potterverse they could have picked to humiliate him, why this one...lets 
get back to Tabouli's original question.

> Tabouli wrote:
> > And when Harry turns
> > out to be a Parselmouth, Snape doesn't seem surprised... he
> > looks "shrewd and calculating". Does Snape know something we don't?
> > (actually, he knows a helluva lot we would dearly like to know) Did
> > he pick that spell in order because he wanted to test a theory he
> > had about Harry, or Voldemort, or the failed curse?

And Elkins replied:

> It's certainly open to interpretation.? Personally, I have to say
> that it really doesn't look to me as if Snape's intention there was
> to smoke out Harry's parseltongue abilities.? It's highly subjective,
> of course, but what we are given there just doesn't leave me with the
> impression of Snape as a man awaiting the results of an experiment:
> he does not, for example, seem either surprised or disappointed when
> Harry freezes, rather than speaking to the snake initially.? I rather
> get the impression that he suggested Serpensortia merely as a way of
> entertaining himself.

Well, I wouldn't put it past Snape to not show his hand when Harry 
doesn't immediately burst out into Parseltongue. I agree with you that 
it's totally a matter of interpretation; Snape is his usual enigmatic 
self here, but while we're on the subject, and Tabouli did ask, I 
thought I'd prattle on about it.

One thing that makes me suspect that Snape might have been trying to 
smoke out Harry's Parseltongue abilities is simply Snape himself. That's 
kind of what he does, he has a knack for rooting out scandalous 
information about people. He's a little obsessed with it. He spied as a 
teenager, he spied as young man, and then there was that whole Quirrell 
thing. More on that in a minute.

> He does seem to suspect where Harry might have come by his talent
> very quickly, though -- that "shrewd and calculating look" *is*
> suggestive -- and it wouldn't surprise me at all if he'd wondered
> that about Harry before.? But I just can't quite force myself to read
> that scene as 'Snape tests out his hypothesis.'? It simply doesn't
> ring true to me.

Well, I suspect that Snape wonders a lot of things about Harry, and 
whether he was dead-set on proving Harry's parseltongue abilities once 
and for all or whether he was merely curious and figured "now's as good 
a time as any to try that serpensortia trick," I wouldn't be surprised 
to think he chose that spell for a reason.

As to what Snape knows/wonders/suspects about Harry, lets look at 
something obvious. Snape and Harry have a very interesting thing in 
common, they both have a cursed scar delivered by Lord Voldy himself. As 
of CoS, Snape knows this, but Harry does not. Well, if *I* were Snape, 
I'd be pretty friggin' curious about Harry's scar and what sort of a 
conduit between him and Voldemort it constitutes.

After all, we know (as you, Elkins, so powerfully described) that 
Snape's scar is the result of some heavy duty black magic. It seems to 
transfer at least *some* LV-originated power to the bearer: they can 
apparate to LV's location without knowing where they're going, and 
surely this can't be possible ordinarily (imagine the splinching!). 
Plus, the condition of the scar seems to indicate LV's power level, at 
least to a point. Evidently every DE noticed his scar fade to 
near-dormancy after LV was vanquised the first time; otherwise Karkaroff 
wouldn't get so upset at its return. So it seems to function as an LV 
conduit; power, information, connectivity. The potterverse equivalent of 
a cellphone and so much more.

OK, so Harry's scar is not *exactly* like Snape's and Snape knows, above 
all, Harry was an unwilling recipient, but still. He's a little 
paranoid, our Snape is.

Let's talk about the Quirrell connection. When Harry confronts him at 
the end of PS/SS, Quirrell huffs that Snape "suspected me all along." 
Oh, did he? Before the troll incident? Why? Well, let's look at an 
earlier scene, in fact our first introduction to Snape:

	Professor Quirrell, in his absurd turban, was talking
to a teacher with greasy black hair, a hooked nose, and sallow skin.

     It happened very suddenly. The hook-nosed teacher looked past
Quirrell's turban straight into Harry's eyes -- and a sharp, hot
pain shot across the scar on Harry's forehead.

     "Ouch!" Harry clapped a hand to his head.

Well, in retrospect I think it's safe to say that it wasn't Snape's 
malevolent glance that set off Harry's scar, but rather the contents of 
Quirrell's turban. But why did Snape think to look at Harry just at this 
moment? Did his scar suddenly burn too? And whether it did or not, he 
certainly must have noticed Harry cry out and clutch his forehead. And 
he certainly must have been wondering what was up with that, and how it 
related to Quirrell.

I'm always haunted by the part of the Pensieve scene where Harry watches 
his own face morph smoothly into Snape's. I always think 'wow, what does 
that mean!' In the context of the scene it would seem that the obvious 
parallel is their scars; Snape's face appears in the Pensieve to 
announce the intensification of his scar and Harry has showed up in 
Dumbledore's office in the first place with the purpose of telling him 
about how his own scar is burning. Dumbledore really doesn't contribute 
much to this discussion; he merely theorizes that Harry's scar connects 
him to LV and burns when LV is nearby or feeling particularly murderous. 
We knew this all along! Although you wonder if Snape wasn't musing to 
Dumbledore about his own worries about Harry's scar at some point 
previous.

> But of course, other mileages may vary.

Yeah, my mileage seems to have run off the map. I know none of this 
proves that Snape chose the serpensortia to expose Harry, but I think 
there's more than enough evidence that Snape has a lot to seriously 
wonder about LV's failed curse and how this has effected Harry. In some 
ways he probably knows about it more than any other 'good guy,' more 
even than Dumbledore himself. So you wonder how this will come into play 
in future books.

> About that "shrewd and calculating look," though.? If, as Tabouli
> suggests, Snape knows more than we might suspect about Voldemort or
> the failed curse, could this be due to his experience with the Dark
> Arts themselves?? Was there something about Voldemort's favored brand
> of Dark magic that might have made that odd form of soul-leakage that
> seems to have accompanied his failed AK a *more* likely side-effect
> for him than it would have been for, say, just some random wizard
> trying to use a Killing Curse on a mystically-protected baby
> Harry?

Soul-leakage is a creepy thing, eh? Can't really blame Snape for being 
paranoid.

I like your theories about divination, and how spiritual, yea, even 
demonic possession might be the only effective form. I don't have 
anything to add to this except that it seems to have a familial 
resemblance to Harry's own problems with having too much in common with 
LV, this soul-leakage, which is, to my mind, what made CoS as 
interesting as it was. I hope we see more of this in future books.

Oh, and I asked:
> > Are you suggesting that real, effective divination would be
> > unethical, and thus dark? Or something about the practice of it,
> > like necromancy, would be the darkening factor?

Elkins replied:
> I was thinking the latter, myself.? (On a purely personal level, I'm
> not very comfortable with the notion that there might be anything
> intrinsically unethical about divination.)?

But if you used your knowledge to play the horses, you'd throw off the 
odds for everyone else! That's so unfair!

Personally, if I knew the future I think that knowledge would corrupt me 
somehow. At least it could make me more cynical than I already am. 
What's life without hope? But this is assuming my foreknowledge was 
concrete and specific; not cryptic and poetic. In fiction, I always 
prefer the weird, easily-misinterpreted predictions myself.

~~Porphyria


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




From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 18 04:42:54 2002
From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 04:42:54 -0000
Subject: DADA Teachers - Confirmation
In-Reply-To: <003701c1b7e6$f3d70280$3a97bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>
Message-ID: <a4q0oe+c34l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35387

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Felicia Rickmann" 
<felicia.rickmann at d...> wrote:
> Can anyone tell me if JKR told that the next book has a female DADA
> teacher?

> 
> Apparently JKR has made a nubmer of statements on Book Five all of 
which were listed on the Harry Potter Galleries site (which I can't 
find now). 

The Galleries site has been down for over a week. The list of 
statements JKR has made about book five, including the comment about 
the female DADA teacher, is available in the Lexicon:
http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/book_op.html

This list did not originate with me, although I did get permission 
to publish it in the Lexicon. I have never taken the time to verify 
any of these facts from the transcripts of the various interviews 
and chats, so take it with a grain of salt.

That particular fact comes from an online chat in October 2000 on 
AOL. 

Steve at Lexicon




From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 18 04:55:11 2002
From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 04:55:11 -0000
Subject: Crouch birthdate/trial date question
In-Reply-To: <a4kaco+gtch@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4q1ff+6mcs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35388

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote (about Crouch's 1962 birthday):
> 
> > Where does the lexicon get the birthday? Is it just an 
assumption 
> from 
> > a 1981 date?
> > 
> 
> I have no clue.  All I know is that Steve says it, so it is 
true.  :-)
> I suspect it is extrapolated from something.  It probably isn't 
far 
> off, though.

Well, I think I'll print this off and show it to my wife. "If I say 
it, it must be true." There you go.

But seriously, I was a bit alarmed by reading this thread. I tried 
to remember how I decided with so much certainty that Crouch Jr. was 
born in 1962. Then I tried to find *where* I stated it with so much 
certainty that Crouch Jr. was born in 1962. What I found so far is 
that the Lexicon doesn't give exact dates for either his birth or 
his trial.

The reference I have on the timeline gives the date as "c.1962" for 
his birth. That little letter c makes all the difference, since it 
indicates that the date is approximate. The timeline also 
gives "after 1981" for his trial. That means that I DON'T know for 
sure when it is.

Is there somewhere else in the Lexicon where I didn't make that 
clear? I checked Crouch's bio. I'll have a look at the timeline of 
Voldemort's rise to power, which I didn't write myself, and see if 
it's stated there. Otherwise it's pretty clear that the dates are 
not for sure.

Steve at Lexicon





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 18 06:14:58 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 06:14:58 -0000
Subject: Draco vs Ron (Was Re: Musings on Draco0
In-Reply-To: <20020218005358.80694.qmail@web20408.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a4q652+va7r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35389

I posted on my Nephew's idea on a Draco/Hermione match because he 
says Draco warned Hermione at the World Cup. 
As I remember it, Draco warned Harmione to "Watch out if you don't 
want everyone to see your knickers!" 

In response ladjables <ladjables at y...> wrote:

> uncmark, I think your nephew's very clever.  You
> should listen to him, he knows how teenage boys think!
>  I remember reading this and thinking exactly along
> the same lines.  Well, I'm not a 13 year old boy, but
> I did wonder for a minute if Draco had started to
> notice Hermione as a girl first, and a mudblood
> second.
> 
> Draco's prejudice doesn't preclude normal, human, adolescent 
> emotions. Hormones, those hormones determine feelings for the
> opposite/same sex!  It's not rare for a prejudiced
> teen to have a crush on someone from another
> race/ethnicity/gender, because he simply can't help
> the way he feels!  

Excuse me? You consider Draco's hormones on the same level as caring 
for her? The incident brought to mind a son of a Grand Wizard 
reveling as his fathers group of Klansman milested a black woman. If 
he warned a black girl that she would be next would that show any 
feelings but the basest?

ladjables continued
> "on the flip side, realization of such feelings may lead to a 
> more virulent form of prejudice, especially if the person 
> experiences self-loathing, and/or is even rejected by the object
> of his affections.  The suppression of anger and shame in a 
> prejudiced mind must be like a powder keg about to go off. So while 
> D/H isn't impossible, Hermione could also find herself the victim 
> of unrequited love!
>  Talk about putting a fatal spin on the Hermione/Draco
> romance.

Have you forgotten Chapter 12 of ChofS? Harry & Ron as polyjuiced 
versions of Crabbe and Goyle questioned Malfoy about the heir of 
Slytherin. Malfoy knew nothing definite about the heir, but 
boasted "But I know one thing -- last time the Chamber of secrets was 
opened, a Mudblood died. So I bet it's a matter of time before one of 
them's killed this time.... I hope it's Granger," he said in relish"

Doesn't sound too subtle or hidden. Draco would like H dead. And it 
doesn't sould like juvenile joking either.

I posed the question about Draco's redemption and consider it a 
possibility

ladjables relied

> Since redemption is about delivering from evil and all that, who 
> would make a better candidate than Draco, ignorant child of 
> aristocratic bigots?  He is, after all, still a child, and as far 
> as I'm concerned still teetering on the precipice overlooking
> damnation.  And even if you fall, you can cling on for dear life.  

Still a child? In ChofS he was 12 and in GofF, 14. In Tacoma 
Washington last year a man was beaten to death by a gangs of kids 
ages 11-17 and they were discussing charging all of them as adults (I 
think the youngest charged as an adult was 13) 

I'm not sure about Wizard Law, but Draco can be seen as an accomplice 
in his Father's crimes of Dark Arts contraband (ChofS) as well as 
aiding and abetting in the torture of Muggles (GofF). Still, his 
father kept him ignorant of his diary conspiracy in ChofS and he may 
still not know. 

ladjables continued
> My point simply is that Draco is as acceptable a subject for 
> redemption as anyone who is being led astray.  As you've said, he's 
> been spoon-fed his parents' "values", but he may find himself in a
> position one day where he realizes it isn't worth leading a life 
> full of hate.  We'll just have to wait and see what JKR does with 
> him.   

I think her treatment of the Malfoy's might be JKR's greatest 
challenge. It's easy to write racists, It hard to write multi-
dimensional characters. I'm guessing that the trio of Malfoy, Crabbe, 
and Goyle have been playmates since preschool, repeating Daddy's 
garbage and only seeing anything new at Hogwart's. 

In four books he's seen LV's plans fail 4 times (OK 3 1/2, LV made it 
back to life, but Harry survived) While C&G appear dumb as posts, 
Draco presnts himself as bright. Its possible he might be as high as 
straight A's, but considered as a failure to Daddy because a Mudblood 
was first in class.

Still if we see a full wizard war and Draco is forced to become a 
participant, he will have to make a difficult choice... And as Dumble 
dore told Harry in ChofS Ch. 18, "It is our choices, Harry, that show 
ehat we truly are, far more than our abilities."

Can't wait to see what Draco decides.

Uncmark 




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 18 08:29:11 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:29:11 -0000
Subject: Draco vs Ron Part 2
Message-ID: <a4qe0n+tbvh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35390

Would believe I accidentally posted before adding Ron?

After my Nephew presented Draco as a match for Hermione, I presented 
Draco's character. Consider the incident at the World Cup. While 
masked Dark Wizard's levitated muggles(including a mother and little 
girl) Draco leered in the forest. As I remember it, Draco warned 
Harmione to "Watch out if you don't want everyone to see your 
knickers!" 

ladjables replied, "Draco's prejudice doesn't preclude normal, human, 
adolescent emotions. Hormones, those hormones determine feelings for 
the opposite/same sex! It's not rare for a prejudiced teen to have a 
crush on someone from another race/ethnicity/gender, because he 
simply can't help the way he feels!"

Personally, I consider Draco's hormones on the same level as caring 
for her? The incident brought to mind a son of a Grand Wizard 
reveling as his fathers group of Klansman milested a black woman. If 
he warned a black girl that she would be next would that show any 
feelings but the basest?

Meanwhile Ron witnessed the same incident of seeing a Muggle woman's 
knickers, and how did this 14 yo wizard handle his hormones? "That's 
sick!" he said.

Both Draco and Ron come from pureblood families, but both have 
distinctly different reactions. I see 2 distinct reasons for this

1) Moral upbringing - Arthur Weasley is an advocate for Muggle Rights 
and raised a large family with values of fairness and friendship. 
Draco is the only child of a follower of Lord Voldemort. He was 
raised with values of bullying, racism, and possibly murder.

2) If Ron was a bit slow on the uptake that Hermione is a girl, I 
blame this on the fact that he sees her as a good friend. He has only 
one younger sisters so probably doesn't know how to act around girls. 

Draco has two accomplices in bullying, but I wouldn't call there him 
and C&G friends on the level of HRH. Could you see any of them facing 
death for Draco? Could you even see them letting Draco stun them 
continuously for practice? 

Example of their 'friendship' ChofS Ch. 12: Draco to Harry 
(polyjuiced as Goyle) "Honestly, if you were any slower, you'd be 
going backward."

As for Harry and Ron? Example of their 'friendship' ChofS Ch. 16:
Harry to Ron when they discover the hidden entrance to the Chamber in 
Moaning Myrtle's bathroom: 
"I'm going down there," he (Harry) said.
He couldn't not go, not now they found the entrance to the Chamber, 
not if there was the faintest, slimmest, wildest chance that Ginny 
might be alive.
"Me too." said Ron.







From gideoner4 at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 18 10:43:16 2002
From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (gideoner4)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:43:16 -0000
Subject: Draco vs Ron (Was Re: Musings on Draco0
In-Reply-To: <a4q652+va7r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4qls4+548l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35391

If Draco does notice Hermione, I too believe that it's all hormones. 
In GoF, the Yule Ball, even Draco couldn't find an insult to throw 
at Hermione because Hermione was looking pretty at that time. 
Definitely just hormones. IMHO, that is.

Still, I am intrigued by the slapping incident PoA, where Hermione 
slapped Draco and all Draco did was mutter "c'mon" to his two thugs 
and left.  In all honesty, I haven't got a clue what's Draco's motive 
behind that. Was he simply scared of Hermione? Or maybe he did not 
want to cause trouble? But why? He could have hexed Hermione right 
then and there. But he left. Now as I said I didn't know what could 
have been going on inside Draco's head at that time. But I want to 
believe that Draco is hopefully still redeemable, and there's a 
spark of basic human goodness left in him. We really do not know 
much about Draco aside from the horrible git that he is in canon.  
But we don't know if he's abused physically. We don't know what kind 
of father Lucius is to him. We don't know what kind Narcissa's and 
Lucius's marriage is. So I really find it hard to think that Draco's 
all evil. I, too, can't wait what Draco will do when he comes face 
to face with a decision he himself has to make, and not his 
father.   









From pen at pensnest.co.uk  Mon Feb 18 11:56:52 2002
From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:56:52 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Rumour about Book 5 release date
In-Reply-To: <a4mvu7+qctt@eGroups.com>
References: <000701c1b700$fedc0680$7657893e@Michelle>
Message-ID: <l03130300b8969c22376b@[161.33.128.215]>

No: HPFGUIDX 35392

>--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Michelle Apostolides"
>
><michelleapostolides at y...> wrote:
>
>> The only flaw with that would be that in the UK,  schools don't
>
>finish until the middle or end of July, so I am pretty sure that if
>
>that is what is planned, then I doubt that Bloomsbury would permit
>
>the book to be released in the US before the UK.
>
>
>
>Perhaps not but I'm pretty certain that half-term falls on the weeks
>
>beginning May 20 and May 27 this year. (Perhaps someone with kids, or
>
>someone still in school can confirm that?)

I make no attempt to predict release dates for anything, but half-term this
summer will be the week containing the doubled Bank Holiday in celebration
of the Golden Jubilee.  Around 2nd June.  A week later than usual.

Pen






From Edblanning at aol.com  Mon Feb 18 12:46:46 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 07:46:46 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Avery, Voldemort's Wand, Timeline (WAS Avery and Ambu...
Message-ID: <115.cc3a591.29a251b6@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35393

In a message dated 16/02/02 02:57:42 GMT Standard Time, Cornet83 at aol.com 
writes:


> back to the theory though...
> 
> Now Pettigrew was the Potter's secret keeper and though Im now expert 
> on the Fidelius charm Im guessing that in order for Voldemort to 
> reach the Potters the secret keeper had to not only tell the location 
> of the protected people but accompany the searcher as well. After 
> Voldie dispatches of the Potters (I wont go as far as to speculate 
> how he did it, or who did it, or who died first, Im a newbie afterall)
> old Peter keeps the wand, either as a way to try and show voldemort 
> his loyalty later on ("but my Lord, I kept your wand faithfully while 
> awaiting your return") or for sonme other reason.  Of course then 
> Peter has no problem of delivering the wand to V. and V. still has 
> his old wand.
> 
> Now there is no canon to back me up and this is all purely 
> specualtion but what does everyone think? 
> 

Cindy:

>Eileen again (on whether Avery had anything to do with Voldemort's 
>wand):

>> We could have it.
>> 
>> 1. Pettigrew picks up wand.
>> 2. Gives it to Voldemort.
>> 
>> OR
>> 
> 1. Avery picks up wand 
> 2. Gives to Crouch Jr.
> 3. Confiscated by Crouch Sr., who keeps it around just in case.
> 4. Voldemort gets it back when he visits the Crouch residence.

But . . . but . . . Voldemort is a vapor, a cloud of gas, a stench on 
the back of Quirrell's turban or some such.  Voldemort can't have 
possession of his wand until the beginning of GoF.  Indeed, he 
remarks that possessing snakes wasn't his cup of tea because their 
slimy little no-hands bodies aren't great for magic, IIRC.  So Avery 
has to give it to someone who doesn't wind up in Azkaban.  

::Cindy, having had a good night's sleep and now being willing to 
tackle this issue, squares her shoulders::

The obvious choices:

Bagman
Malfoy
McNair

Krystyne:
>Now here's where you messed up. You must remember that Peter 
>transformed himself into a rat the day after the Potters were killed 
>when Sirius went to confront him. He couldn't have possibly kept it. 
>If it was that, then why didn't he have his own? Now a possibilty is 
>that Peter hid it in some unknown place, maybe hoping Voldemort would 
>rise again. I'd probably buy that though. Oh well. Maybe we'll never 
>know.

Thank you, my dear. Someone else has recognised this problem! (you posted 
this after I had written the following)

Time for some more character assasination, I feel.

Right... I was polishing up my trusty old Spy Glass the other day whilst 
contemplating my current obsession which no-one else seems to share ( is it 
that the answer's obvious, or that no-one has any ideas?) - what happened to 
Pettigrew's wand?- when a figure came swimming into view: none other than the 
MOM himself, Cornelius Fudge. 
Now, I've always been inclined to give old Cornelius the benefit of the 
doubt, just stupid or blind (perhaps he needs Corneal grafts? Sorry, couldn't 
resist that, one of the worst experiences of my life was scrubbing for that 
procedure for a particularly nasty ophthalmic surgeon who could out-Snape 
Snape). But I wonder....

First the evidence.
We assume that animagi's wands transform with them, along with their clothes, 
don't we?
But Pettigrew shows no sign of being armed in the Shreiking Shack and in the 
graveyard, uses Voldemort's wand.
No wand is reported as found at the scene of the muggle massacre, although 
robes and Pettigrew's finger are.
Voldemort is disembodied and cannot carry a wand.
So there are potentially, between the events surrounding the Potters' deaths 
and GoF, *two* missing wands, one of which doesn't reappear.
Who is one of the first on the scene after Pettigrew's disappearing trick? 
Young Cornelius Fudge.
Karkaroff tells us in the Pensieve scene that Rookwood had a *network* of 
well-placed wizards , both in the MOM and out. The only one of these we know 
of so far (IIRC) is Bagman. 
As MOM, Fudge takes a *very* hands-on approach to finding Harry and capturing 
Sirius.
He is far too friendly with Lucius Malfoy
The secret chamber under the Malfoy's living room doesn't appear to have been 
searched, despite Harry and Ron finding out about it in CoS and Ron's 
determination to tell his father.
He has an elevated view of the superiority of pure-blood and proper wizarding 
pride which is uncomfortably close to Voldemort's doctrine.
Cindy points out,
>Avery, however, gets out quickly -- as soon as Fudge 
>takes over.

So... What if Fudge was one of Rookwood's network? He could have been in on 
Pettigrew's diappearance, which has all the hallmarks of being planned 
(albeit, it must have been arranged rapidly, and was another of those plans 
which could so easily have gone wrong) and could have framed Sirius.
Think for a moment. One of the biggest problems with Pettigrew's escape plan 
is the evidence which Sirius' wand could give via *prior incantato*. Sirius' 
descent into hysteria and his guilt-induced 'confession'  couldn't be 
predicted. If he had kept calm and demanded that his wand be allowed to give 
its evidence, his innocence might have been demonstrated instantly. 
What if someone (Fudge) substituted the guilty wand for Sirius' wand. No 
danger of the verdict (not that it came to trial) being overturned. No danger 
of any deranged tale that it was really Pettigrew who had killed the muggles 
being believed.
So that could be where Pettigrew's wand ended up.
Now there is also the possibility that Pettigrew *has* rescued Voldemort's 
wand from the rubble. Could this too, be passed on to Fudge, who then could 
have returned it to Pettigrew after his escape from Harry et al. 
Alternatively, Fudge could have passed it on to Lucius Malfoy to add to his 
collection of Voldemort memorabilia.

What about this hands-on approach to finding Harry and Sirius? 
If Fudge knows that Sirius is innocent, then he might want to get to Harry 
first, to find him before Sirius can convince him of his innocence, which 
could than be reported straight back to Dumbledore. He also of course wants 
to make sure that Sirius is eliminated, so that his own complicity in the 
plot doesn't come to light. No wonder he wants to give Snape the Order of 
Merlin - he's just saved his bacon.

So why his reaction to being told that Voldemort is back? Well, he hasn't 
exactly been a faithful servant has he?  Basically in this theory, he is a 
weak, foolish and self-interested man who has just swum with the tide, 
joining whichever side seemed to be in the ascendency, without the foresight 
to realise that the Dark Lord could rise again and without the moral fibre to 
face up to what he has done or attempt to make up for it. He doesn't want 
Voldemort back because it puts him on the wrong side. But joining Dumbledore 
means abandoning all those nice cosy assumptions he has, joining forces with 
groups he'd rather ostracise and the running the risk of being uncovered.

I admit the evidence is circumstantial, but it *could* work....couldn't it?

>Cindy -- finding it lonely in the Ambush-On-Dumbledore's-Orders camp, 
>the Reverse-Memory-Charm camp, the Bagman-Is-A-DE camp, the Sirius-
>Was-Having-His-Way-With-Florence camp, and the Snape-Has-A-Debt-To-
>James camp, but consoling herself by eating all of the Smores 
>singlehandedly

Well, there are at least two of us huddling together for warmth in the Bagman 
is a DE camp and of course Snape has a debt to James, doesn't he? What have I 
been missing?
I think it highly probable that Dumbledore did order ambushes - even bloody 
ones! - but I don't think that demanding Snape gave up his friends (I'm still 
not convinced how close he was to them, anyway) is his style. No, I think 
Snape would have provided the info voluntarily once he'd changed sides. Yes, 
I think Dumbledore may have asked him to do *something* to prove his loyalty, 
but I don't think he would necessarily specify what (and again, I think that 
Snape would have realised that some proof was needed and would have 
volunteered it). And I think that the proof  was probably something really 
personal. Perhaps that's where Florence comes in? 

And what are Smores anyway? Can I try one, please?

Eloise (fearing she's marooned herself on a desert island, tossing a few 
sticks on the campfire and hoping that someone might visit now and then.)



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




From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Mon Feb 18 13:58:30 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 13:58:30 -0000
Subject: Canon evidence for Snape being a vampire
In-Reply-To: <a4k20c+s65s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4r1a6+47ig@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35394

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> 
> Snape as vampire: the evidence
> 
I've said it before, but you've missed out my favourite: if someone 
called Remus Lupin has to be a werewolf, surely someone whose name 
sounds like 'Sever his nape' has to be interested in cutting necks.

David




From maryblue67 at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 18 14:02:13 2002
From: maryblue67 at yahoo.com (Maria)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 06:02:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Rumour about Book 5 release date
In-Reply-To: <1013954413.1417.86849.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020218140213.79004.qmail@web11102.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35395

Regarding the rumors about Book 5, Barbara Jebenstreit said:

>Well, let us assume, the book is going to beleased in July. Then
they
>*really should* start to distribut the books by May.

>From the way Maria told it, Saint Louis is an kind of planing and 
>organizing
>centre - some kind of headquarter - for UPS. Am I right Maria? In
that 
>case it would be logical that the transportation firm is asked to
reserve
>capacities for the delivery date.

Well, i don't know if Saint Louis is the center or not, but i'm sure
due to
it's location it might be of some importance.

Pippin also commented:

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "roleplayer_m_uk" 
>> 
>> Plus, the DVD of the movie is scheduled for release May 11 
>and they'd 
>> be pretty smart to build up the excitement for the DVD and the 
>new 
>> book together and use each to promote the other.
>> 
>> There may be some truth in it...

>Or could it be that it is the  DVD and not the book that was going 
>to be delivered in May and UPS is saving space for?

It could be... i will definitely ask him. He told me that if i wanted
he
could try to find out more. I'll ask him to check if it is the DVD or
the 
book. i'll let you know!!!

Maria


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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com



From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Mon Feb 18 14:37:43 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:37:43 -0000
Subject: Rumour about Book 5 release date
In-Reply-To: <20020218140213.79004.qmail@web11102.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a4r3jn+8v69@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35396


> 
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "roleplayer_m_uk" 
> >> 
> >> Plus, the DVD of the movie is scheduled for release May 11 
> >and they'd 
> >> be pretty smart to build up the excitement for the DVD and the 
> >new 
> >> book together and use each to promote the other.

Yes, without proper promotion, an obscure volume like OoTP could 
easily get lost in the shuffle of new releases.


   - CMC




From meboriqua at aol.com  Mon Feb 18 14:53:05 2002
From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:53:05 -0000
Subject: Draco vs Ron (Was Re: Musings on Draco0
In-Reply-To: <a4qls4+548l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4r4gh+ogcc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35397

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "gideoner4" <gideoner4 at y...> wrote:
 
> Still, I am intrigued by the slapping incident PoA, where Hermione  
slapped Draco and all Draco did was mutter "c'mon" to his two thugs  
and left.  In all honesty, I haven't got a clue what's Draco's motive  
behind that. Was he simply scared of Hermione? Or maybe he did not 
> want to cause trouble?>

I'd say he was quite afraid of what Hermione might do to him next.  
I'd put my money on Hermione without hesitation if she and Draco were 
to go at it.  Even Draco's father mentions her marks to Draco in CoS; 
she's got quite a reputation for being a clever witch already.
  
> But we don't know if he's abused physically. We don't know what kind 
> of father Lucius is to him.>

I can't understand why so many people speculate that Draco may be 
abused physically.  Where is the evidence of that?  Lucius is 
disappointed in his son's performance in his classes; very parental 
and caring, IMO.  Lucius and Narcissa are also very giving - Draco 
gets the best brooms to fly with and lots of sweets from home.  He is 
well protected by his parents.  I'm not saying his parents are great; 
Draco is spoiled and being taught quite well to hate, but that does 
not translate to me that his parents hit him.

As far as Draco's redemption goes, I believe the possibility is most 
definitely there, but I've said why many times.  I don't want to 
repeat myself too much.  :-)

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




From cindysphynx at home.com  Mon Feb 18 15:01:18 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 15:01:18 -0000
Subject: Peter Gets The Girl, Lucius, Memory Charm, Edge, Variations on FLIRTIAC, SHIP
Message-ID: <a4r4vu+59jc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35398

Trying to catch up on things here, so bear with me as I bounce around 
a bit:

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

Elkins wrote (about the Reverse Memory Charm):

> Hey, hey!  Hold on a minute here.  I've got no beef with Reverse 
> Memory Charmed Neville.  Tell the truth, I'm an agnostic on the 
topic 
> of what *sort* of Memory Impairing Charm the poor kid's saddled 
> with.  <snip>  

> But there's no reason that you can't have your Reverse Memory Charm 
> scenario taking place in '82 or '83, rather than in '81.
> 
> Is there?

Oh, yes, there most certainly is!  You see, the very purpose of the 
Reverse Memory Charm is to thwart the legions of devoted Memory Charm 
folks.  The Memory Charm believers think Neville got a Memory Charm 
to help him get over the torture of seeing his parents tortured.  
(Between you and me, I secretly suspect that they think that Neville 
is a SYCOPHANT-in-training, but don't say anything because these 
Memory Charm types are *very* sensitive).  

Reverse Memory Charm devotees (both of us) say that Neville was *way* 
too young to have any need for a Memory Charm.  If he is 1 or 2 when 
the Longbottoms are attacked, we have the Memory Charm believers in a 
virtual headlock.  Why would anyone put a Memory Charm on a toddler 
who won't remember anything anyway, particularly if it damages the 
tyke's memory, we heckle?  

That is why I have to guard my flanks against Memory Charm Age 
Creep.  Neville was born sometime in 1980, like Harry.  The attacks 
were (under my theory) in late 1981 or very early 1982.  That makes 
Neville no more than 2 years, 2 months, assuming the worst case that 
Neville was born on January 1, 1980 and the attacks are February 1982.

But look what happens if we push back the attack on the Longbottoms 
into 1983.  Suddenly, Neville is over 3 years old.  And do you know 
what happens next?  People come streaming out of the woodwork to tell 
me all of the horrors visited upon them when they were 3, how they 
vividly recall being spanked in the supermarket at this age, how 
desperately they wish they had received a Memory Charm, and how could 
I be so heartless to deny the poor boy a Memory Charm . . . 

So the timeline is *key.*  No, you *have* to give me the late 1981 or 
very early 1982 torture date, you just have to.   Or . . . or . . . 
this is just not going to work out, Elkins.  It's not you; it's me.  
I don't know what's wrong with me.  Please don't be angry.  We can 
still be friends, OK?  We can celebrate Lupin's Edge together, all 
right?  Good.

Elkins again:

>Okay, so I'm on board with the whole Reverse Memory 
> Charm thing.  Count me in.  (Er...which of those very long acronyms 
> is ours again?)

M.A.T.C.H.I.N.G.A.R.M.C.H.A.I.R. 
Marooned At The Court Hearing, Ill-fated Neville Got A Reverse Memory 
Charm, Hatching Amnesia-Invoking Results

*************
 Elkins wrote (about what Lucius wants and why):

> It sort of begs the question of why he cast his lot in with 
Voldemort 
> the first time around, doesn't it?  Presumably he's always had life 
> easy.

Yes, now that you mention it, Lucius is going to be very important 
and is in desperate need of a serious backstory too, doesn't 
he?  ::ignores collective groan and eye-roll from list members::

Lucius is almost as mysterious as Snape, isn't he?  He seems to have 
money, influence and a proper trophy wife in the legitimate wizarding 
world, but for some reason, that isn't enough.  No, Lucius has to 
take up with Voldemort -- Mr. All-Knowing, Mr. All-Powerful, 
Mr. "Phoenix Tears, I Forgot".  

And when Voldemort falls, Lucius never seems to contemplate just 
picking right up where Voldemort left off.  After all, Lucius now 
knows not to attack Harry directly, and that he will need a basilisk 
or something really fancy to get the job done.  With a little quiet 
contemplation, Lucius might be able to figure a way out of the Harry 
problem without killing Harry at all.  Yet Lucius doesn't do 
anything.  He just whines about being under the Imperius Curse and 
goes back to his hum-drum little suburban life, picking on house 
elves for sport, where he apparently doesn't even have a job or 
anything.  

Is this because the Death Eaters really don't stand for much, so 
Lucius sees no reason to continue their goals, whatever they are?  Is 
it because so many Death Eaters died and Lucius doesn't think he can 
persuade anyone else to join up with him?  Is Lucius on an extended 
paternity leave caring for Draco so that he misses all of the action 
in Fall 1981?  There *must* be a reason.

I think I'm going with the theory that Lucius didn't continue the 
Death Eaters' mission because he lacked sufficient reliable foot 
soldiers.  After the dust settled, Lucius had Avery, Crabbe, Goyle 
and McNair.  McNair would surely behead Avery on sight, just for 
fun.  That would leave only Crabbe and Goyle to help Lucius take over 
the world.  I think Lucius was not liking those odds, and I can't 
blame him.

Elkins again (on Lupin's Edge):

>But Edge is *good,* Cindy.  Edge is really really *good.*  Edge is...
> 
> Well, I think that maybe 'Edge' is for me a bit like what 'Tough' 
>is for you.  Capiche?

OK, I guess so.  You like Edge; I like Tough.  But tell me.  Are 
there any other characters besides Lupin who have Edge?  Does 
Voldemort have Edge?  He's rather grim in the graveyard scene, I 
guess.  Does Snape have Edge?  Is it enough to have a twisted smile 
and be move "lazily"?  I don't think I get Edge.  Edge is harder to 
evaluate than Tough.

Tabouli wrote (about who Florence was kissing):

> For the first few delirious weeks, Barty and Florence conducted a 
>relationship on the sly.  <snip>  However, before she'd made much 
>headway, nosy seventh year Bertha spotted Barty sneaking off to the 
>greenhouses after dark, and followed him, where she saw the 
>incredibly gossip-worthy sight of the Sinister, Sexy fifth year 
>Florence snogging MP Crouch's 13 year old son!  Corr!!!  

Inventive and compelling as this is, I see one problem:  Barty Crouch 
Jr. is dead, dead, dead!  (Well, not really, but kind of dead, 
anyway).  So why would we waste the Florence-kissing backstory on 
someone who definitely won't play a big role in future books?

::looks around for another character as a good make-out partner for 
Florence Lestrange::

Good heavens!  We've missed the obvious. Who do we all overlook as 
possibly having ever been worthy of a girlfriend?  Who would have to 
stoop so low as to have a Slytherin girlfriend?  Who would be such a 
wimp that he would only make out behind a greenhouse?  Who met up 
with Bertha in the forest, but she was too dumb to realize that he 
was supposed to be dead?

Peter, that's who!  It was *Peter* who was kissing Florence, and 
Bertha got hexed by Peter.  You see, Florence seduced Peter into 
joining the DEs with her feminine charms.  And boy, he fell for it.  
He fell for her so hard that he became willing to betray James, Lily 
and Sirius, all at once.  

Sadly, Peter and Florence didn't work out, and she started seeing Mr. 
Lestrange on the side.  She preferred him because he was a totally 
useless coward, someone totally lacking a spine, someone who would 
never do anything truly brave, someone who would never sever his own 
body parts.  Florence likes that in a man.  

They get married, and Peter is heartbroken.  Crushed.  Crestfallen.  
He wants out of the DEs.  But it is too late; he is in too deep.  
Peter knows that if he leaves the DEs, he will be killed.  He is 
trapped.  He goes through with Florence's plan to betrays the 
Potters, figuring a little DE glory might be enough to turn 
Florence's evil little head.  It doesn't work, though.  No, instead, 
the whole plan backfires, and Peter spends a good chunk of life as a 
rat, sleeping and dreaming of what could have been, wondering if he 
can sneak into Azkaban and be the rat in Florence's cell.

Many years later, Peter stumbles across Bertha in the forest.  And 
how does Peter lure Bertha into a midnight stroll with him?  By 
telling her that he wants to apologize for hexing her lo those many 
years ago.  Bertha, being quite stupid, nods dimly and does not 
realize she has been had until she is being tortured half to death by 
a slimy baby.  

Dumbledore's sadness is his realization that, just the way Peter 
hexed Bertha at Hogwarts, he has hexed her again and caused her 
disappearance.

Any takers?  Anyone?  Anyone?

Personally, I like the Florence Trapezoid better, but I'm getting 
desperate here.

Tabouli wrote (about Mrs. Norris):

> My favorite theory is that she's Filch's lover, cursed by her 
>husband when he caught them together (hm... >maybe Filch should try 
>kissing her!  If, of course, FLIRTIAC is correct, the person who, 
>under great stress, finally does magic late in life would probably 
>be Filch, of course.  Maybe someone will threaten to AK his beloved 
>Mrs Norris, and in a last, frantic, furious burst of energy, he 
>casts aside his Quikspell handbook and gets it right at last, 
>turning her back into a yellow-eyed, thin woman in late middle age, 
>with dust coloured hair...

OK, I'm almost in.  I have been holding out against FLIRTIAC for some 
time, as something just doesn't feel right.  Let's say Filch is a 
squib and Mrs. Norris has been hexed.  Filch works for one of the 
most powerful wizards ever ? Albus Dumbledore.  So why doesn't he 
just ask Dumbledore to put it right?

Unless . . . unless . . .  Mrs. Norris was *married* to Albus 
Dumbledore, and Filch was having an affair with her.  When Dumbledore 
caught them in the broom closet together, he was more than a bit 
hacked off.  He turned Filch into a squib and turned is wife into a 
cat.  Mrs. Norris' name isn't really Mrs. Norris, of course.  But 
Filch could hardly walk around calling his cat Mrs. Dumbledore, now 
could he?  

Canon, where did I put the canon?  Oh, yes.  Here it is.  In CoS, a 
petrified Mrs. Norris is discovered.  Filch, being in love with Mrs. 
Norris, goes to pieces.  But what does Dumbledore do?  "Dumbledore 
had arrived on the scene . . . In seconds, he had swept past 
Harry . . . . The tip of Dumbledore's long, crooked nose was barely 
an inch from Mrs. Norris' fur.  He was looking at her . .  his long 
fingers gently prodding and poking."  That's an awful lot of care 
Dumbledore uses in checking out a frozen cat.  Hmmmm.  

Elkins wrote:

> As she degenerates into incoherent hysteria, Elkins' alarmed 
> companions rush to her aid: Tough Cindy, who begins slapping her 
> repeatedly in the face while screaming, spit flying from the 
corners 
> of her mouth, "Suck it *up,* soldier!  Suck it *up,* damn you!"; 

Oh, dear.  I seem to have given you all a very distorted and totally 
wrong impression of me.  I would *never, ever* assault someone like 
Elkins in this fashion.  It would never happen.  It's just not my 
style.  I only beat up men. :-)

Cindy (who only really gets violent in the presence of ice dancers)




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Mon Feb 18 15:08:00 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 02:08:00 +1100
Subject: Time-travelling Snape and the ghostly Nick?
Message-ID: <004401c1b88e$0f354260$0f26ddcb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35399

David:
> > Snape as vampire: the evidence
> 
>I've said it before, but you've missed out my favourite: if someone 
called Remus Lupin has to be a werewolf, surely someone whose name 
sounds like 'Sever his nape' has to be interested in cutting necks.<

Yeees, but "sever" and "puncture for bloodsucking purposes" aren't quite the same thing... perhaps Snape's true secret is that he made a daring and risky trip back in time (to prove his loyalty to Dumbledore after leaving the DEs) to tie up a potentially disastrous fracture in the space-time continuum... by decapitating Nearly Headless Nick!

Unfortunately, of course, the passage through time weakened Snape so much he couldn't manage a severing charm, and was forced to use the only instrument at hand... a rusty and very blunt axe.

The unruly Tabouli


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




From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com  Mon Feb 18 15:22:54 2002
From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 09:22:54 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Canon evidence for Snape being a vampire
References: <a4r1a6+47ig@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C711C4E.8F64F83F@kingwoodcable.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35400

davewitley wrote:
> 
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> >
> > Snape as vampire: the evidence
> >
> I've said it before, but you've missed out my favourite: if someone
> called Remus Lupin has to be a werewolf, surely someone whose name
> sounds like 'Sever his nape' has to be interested in cutting necks.


And also...besides the names...

Snape had the class do a report on Werewolves, where Lupin returned and
promptly re-assigned the assignment to do a report on Vampires. That's
probably the most convincing piece of evidence for me. Though, I still
don't believe it. I'm willing to believe that he might be part vampire,
as some have suggested, but not 100% vampire. 

I have to say Quirrell's comment about Snape being an overgrown bat was
extremely funny.

-Katze



From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 18 15:14:39 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 15:14:39 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco vs Ron (Was Re: Musings on Draco0
Message-ID: <F72rJbflUTs8ASqzv810001c8d3@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35401

>From: "gideoner4" <gideoner4 at yahoo.com>
>Still, I am intrigued by the slapping incident PoA, where Hermione
>slapped Draco and all Draco did was mutter "c'mon" to his two thugs
>and left.  In all honesty, I haven't got a clue what's Draco's motive
>behind that. Was he simply scared of Hermione? Or maybe he did not
>want to cause trouble? But why? He could have hexed Hermione right
>then and there. But he left.

I speculate that no real reading of Draco's character is needed. He was in 
shock. How many of his fellow Slytherins have ever stood up to him? Has he 
ever been struck by a classmate before? By a *girl* before? I think it 
likely that he was simply shocked that a Gryffindor, a *girl* and a 
*mudblood* would dare to offer him the gross insult of a physical assault.

J

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





From ffionmiles at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 18 16:42:42 2002
From: ffionmiles at hotmail.com (ffimiles)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 16:42:42 -0000
Subject: 1000 hogwarts students, but so little in harry's year, my opinion
In-Reply-To: <001401c1b7fa$a3dbc2c0$9600000a@NEWPC>
Message-ID: <a4rau2+kkgt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35402

Joris was discussing how many pupils are at Hogwarts - and due to the 
Voldemort scare, there ought tob e less.  this does ring true - 
however, in a quidditch match, it is said that there were '200 
Slytherin fans' at one end.  Now, we could argue that Slytherin 
parents would have had babies at this point without fear!  But, as I 
presume the houses must be roughly equal in the amount o, we can only 
assume that there are 800 pupils in the school.
This, however, does not tally with Harry's class - there appears to 
be just 10 in itt who wants to nitpick - I'm sure there are more in 
the year/class, it's just that it wouldurintroduce us to too many 
additional, non-central characters - we just wouldn't care about 
them, and wouldn't get any depth at all.  

But enough of this pedantacism [have made up spelling of that]
Ffi




From Edblanning at aol.com  Mon Feb 18 17:12:39 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:12:39 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape favouring Slytherin (was: Snape & the DEs)
Message-ID: <6a.1b573173.29a29007@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35403

Elkins writes:
> 
> The original question here, though, I seem to remember was one of 
> primary motive -- "why does Snape favor the Slytherins?" -- and 
> really, that's an impossible question to answer.  I think that he 
> does so for multiple reasons, and that the question of which is 
> the "primary" and which the "secondary" motive is probably not only 
> completely context-dependent, but also ultimately unanswerable.  I 
> doubt that Snape himself knows how he prioritizes such considerations.
> 

Never one to be put off by the impossible...

Poor old Severus. He's just got so complicated, hasn't he? Doesn't know 
whether he's a good guy or a bad guy, sadist or saviour. His intellect tells 
him one thing, his instincts tell him something else (and variations of that 
theme). Then there are all the complications of his love life, trying to 
remember exactly who he was kissing (or not kissing) where and when. Poor 
chap doesn't know whether he's coming or going.

But the one thing he *does* know is that he's a Slytherin. Like it or loathe 
it, that's what he is and that's something he can't change any more than  the 
kids in his charge can.
Now, of course, we're into the whole sorting business again, and we've had 
debates already about how much one can decide to be in a house (as in Harry's 
determination not to be in Slytherin) or how much it is one's essential 
essence that decides it. But it does seem that once one is in a house, there 
is no going back, no turning round because you've realised what nasty little 
creeps those Slytherins are (no stereotyping there, of course :-)!). The 
Sorting Hat has said that is where he belongs; it is one of those facts that 
just has to be lived with. He can draw a line under his past activities, but 
he can't change his house any more than he can change the colour of his eyes. 
Denying it means denying what he is, and he won't do that. Work with it, yes, 
but not deny it. In fact denying it, not being loyal to his house would be in 
a way a betrayal of himself. So of course Snape is loyal to his house. He has 
no option, but it is yet another of those complicating factors of his life. 

Now of course, the Heads of Houses are expected to root for their houses (I 
really like it when Snape turns out for the Quidditch cup final in green, not 
his customary black, although I dread to think how it will go with his skin 
tone). One of the points of having houses in school is to promote healthy 
competition. I think Snape *is* a competitive person. McGonnagal's 
competitive too, in her own way, though obviously fairer. 

 I think Snape's also a person who feels starved of recognition and in 
promoting his house, he benefits from his students' reflected glory. I'm sure 
he got a real buzz (matched only by the satisfaction of creating a really 
difficult potion) from seeing those Slytherin banners in the Great Hall and 
he was really gutted when they changed to Gryffindor. That was *personal*. 
Yes, three quarters of the school would hate him for it, but it was a 
recognised achievement for *his* students and therefore for him. 

And they are *his* students. He's been given them to oversee and 'care' for 
and that's what he'll do - in his own way - which happens to be terribly 
unfair. But then, maybe nobody ever cared enough about him to get someone 
else to slice up his potions ingredients if he broke his arm falling off his 
broomstick ( I'm sure from the canonical hints that he *did* play Quidditch, 
before someone objects). I still think that Draco is to an extent our model 
of child Severus and that Snape's favouritism is a way of making up for the 
perceived injustices of his own childhood. He identifies with his students 
and perhaps particularly with Draco, giving him a blind spot, which he does 
not have where Harry and the Gryffindors are concerned. In fact, the fact 
that he perceives that other people *do* have this Harry Potter blindspot is 
even more of an incentive for him to 'even the score' in his own house's 
favour.

Then of course, there may be the pragmatic element of keeping in with the 
Slytherin/DE parents, but I think this is a secondary motive.

Eloise



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




From elfundeb at aol.com  Mon Feb 18 17:43:05 2002
From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:43:05 -0000
Subject: Draco vs Ron (Was Re: Musings on Draco0
In-Reply-To: <a4q652+va7r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4ref9+h90b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35404

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
> I posted on my Nephew's idea on a Draco/Hermione match because he 
> says Draco warned Hermione at the World Cup. 
> As I remember it, Draco warned Harmione to "Watch out if you don't 
> want everyone to see your knickers!" 
> 
The incident brought to mind a son of a Grand Wizard 
> reveling as his fathers group of Klansman milested a black woman. 
If 
> he warned a black girl that she would be next would that show any 
> feelings but the basest?
> 
Malfoy . . . boasted "But I know one thing -- last time the Chamber 
of secrets was 
> opened, a Mudblood died. So I bet it's a matter of time before one 
of 
> them's killed this time.... I hope it's Granger," he said in relish"
> 
> Doesn't sound too subtle or hidden. Draco would like H dead. > I 
think her treatment of the Malfoy's might be JKR's greatest 
> challenge. It's easy to write racists, It hard to write multi-
> dimensional characters. ) 
> 
> Still if we see a full wizard war and Draco is forced to become a 
> participant, he will have to make a difficult choice... And as 
Dumble 
> dore told Harry in ChofS Ch. 18, "It is our choices, Harry, that 
show 
> ehat we truly are, far more than our abilities."
> 
Appealing as the Draco redemption scenario may be to drive home the 
choices-make-character message, the Draco we have seen to date is, 
IMO, too flat and one-sided to make a credible about-face.  As your 
evidence makes clear, Draco is generally presented as a cowardly 
aristocratic racist snob, though an intelligent one (and therein lies 
a basis for hope).  But he's worse than that:  the death wishes for 
Hermione that he expresses periodically, as you point out, go way 
beyond mere adolescent bullying and veer sharply in the direction of 
the sociopathic child who if left unchecked may take Daddy's arsenal 
to school one day for a murder-suicide rampage (though, in another 
glimmer of hope, he never threatens to carry out the threats 
himself).  And I cannot read his watch-out-for-your-knickers remark 
to Hermione to suggest any feelings toward her other than violence.  
Turning women upside down in the air to expose their knickers is 
probably the closest you can come to rape in a book that is sold in 
the children's section of bookstores.  I'm not an expert on this 
subject, but I do seem to recall that the sociological take on rape 
is that for the rapist that act is about power and control over the 
victim, and not in any measure about feelings.  

Finally, the end of GoF offers no evidence that there has been any 
change whatsoever in Draco's apparent desire for Hermione's 
death.  "He jerked his head at Ron and Hermione.  'They'll be the 
first to go, now the Dark Lord's back!  Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers 
first!'"  What's interesting about this is that, instead of the usual 
response to Draco's threats, where Ron pulls out his wand and the 
others stop him, saying it isn't worth it, this time Harry and 
Hermione join Ron in cursing Draco, as well as Crabbe and Goyle.  
This seems to me to ratchet up the antagonism toward real violence, 
and does not bode well for the shades of gray that I would need to 
see to make Draco's redemption credible.

Of course, we do have a model of redemption already in the person of 
Severus Snape, who is so deliciously nuanced and complicated to have 
spawned reams and reams of posts full of fascinating speculation 
about him and what prompted him to abandon the DEs, just in the last 
few weeks.  History could repeat itself, but I haven't seen anything 
in Draco's development to date -- except his cowardice -- that would 
lead us to believe he would abandon his father's side. (I can see him 
being unable to carry out the death threats, but that would be far 
short of a redemption.)  

Debbie 




From elfundeb at aol.com  Mon Feb 18 17:42:06 2002
From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:42:06 -0000
Subject: Draco vs Ron (Was Re: Musings on Draco0
In-Reply-To: <a4q652+va7r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4redf+ce5c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35405

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
> I posted on my Nephew's idea on a Draco/Hermione match because he 
> says Draco warned Hermione at the World Cup. 
> As I remember it, Draco warned Harmione to "Watch out if you don't 
> want everyone to see your knickers!" 
> 
The incident brought to mind a son of a Grand Wizard 
> reveling as his fathers group of Klansman milested a black woman. 
If 
> he warned a black girl that she would be next would that show any 
> feelings but the basest?
> 
Malfoy . . . boasted "But I know one thing -- last time the Chamber 
of secrets was 
> opened, a Mudblood died. So I bet it's a matter of time before one 
of 
> them's killed this time.... I hope it's Granger," he said in relish"
> 
> Doesn't sound too subtle or hidden. Draco would like H dead. > I 
think her treatment of the Malfoy's might be JKR's greatest 
> challenge. It's easy to write racists, It hard to write multi-
> dimensional characters. ) 
> 
> Still if we see a full wizard war and Draco is forced to become a 
> participant, he will have to make a difficult choice... And as 
Dumble 
> dore told Harry in ChofS Ch. 18, "It is our choices, Harry, that 
show 
> ehat we truly are, far more than our abilities."
> 
Appealing as the Draco redemption scenario may be to drive home the 
choices-make-character message, the Draco we have seen to date is, 
IMO, too flat and one-sided to make a credible about-face.  As your 
evidence makes clear, Draco is generally presented as a cowardly 
aristocratic racist snob, though an intelligent one (and therein lies 
a basis for hope).  But he's worse than that:  the death wishes for 
Hermione that he expresses periodically, as you point out, go way 
beyond mere adolescent bullying and veer sharply in the direction of 
the sociopathic child who if left unchecked may take Daddy's arsenal 
to school one day for a murder-suicide rampage (though, in another 
glimmer of hope, he never threatens to carry out the threats 
himself).  And I cannot read his watch-out-for-your-knickers remark 
to Hermione to suggest any feelings toward her other than violence.  
Turning women upside down in the air to expose their knickers is 
probably the closest you can come to rape in a book that is sold in 
the children's section of bookstores.  I'm not an expert on this 
subject, but I do seem to recall that the sociological take on rape 
is that for the rapist that act is about power and control over the 
victim, and not in any measure about feelings.  

Finally, the end of GoF offers no evidence that there has been any 
change whatsoever in Draco's apparent desire for Hermione's 
death.  "He jerked his head at Ron and Hermione.  'They'll be the 
first to go, now the Dark Lord's back!  Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers 
first!'"  What's interesting about this is that, instead of the usual 
response to Draco's threats, where Ron pulls out his wand and the 
others stop him, saying it isn't worth it, this time Harry and 
Hermione join Ron in cursing Draco, as well as Crabbe and Goyle.  
This seems to me to ratchet up the antagonism toward real violence, 
and does not bode well for the shades of gray that I would need to 
see to make Draco's redemption credible.

Of course, we do have a model of redemption already in the person of 
Severus Snape, who is so deliciously nuanced and complicated to have 
spawned reams and reams of posts full of fascinating speculation 
about him and what prompted him to abandon the DEs, just in the last 
few weeks.  History could repeat itself, but I haven't seen anything 
in Draco's development to date -- except his cowardice -- that would 
lead us to believe he would abandon his father's side. (I can see him 
being unable to carry out the death threats, but that would be far 
short of a redemption.)  

Debbie 




From pennylin at swbell.net  Mon Feb 18 17:59:23 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:59:23 -0600
Subject: Number of Students
References: <a4rau2+kkgt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C7140FB.10109@swbell.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35406

Hi all --

ffimiles wrote:

> Joris was discussing how many pupils are at Hogwarts - and due to the
> Voldemort scare, there ought to be less.  this does ring true -
> however, in a quidditch match, it is said that there were '200
> Slytherin fans' at one end.  Now, we could argue that Slytherin
> parents would have had babies at this point without fear!  But, as I
> presume the houses must be roughly equal in the amount o, we can only
> assume that there are 800 pupils in the school.

Ah yes, but are those 200 Slytherin fans all students?  I say they 
include a healthy mix of parents, alumni, local Hogsmeade Quidditch fans 
and the like.

I mention this not to cut off discussion, but merely to point out that 
this particular issue has been discussed quite alot in the past and a 
summary of the various arguments and theories can be found in the 
Student Population section of the Hogwarts FAQ:

> http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/hogwarts.html

> This, however, does not tally with Harry's class - there appears to
> be just 10 in itt who wants to nitpick - I'm sure there are more in
> the year/class, it's just that it wouldurintroduce us to too many
> additional, non-central characters - we just wouldn't care about
> them, and wouldn't get any depth at all.

Actually canon evidence is pretty clear that there are only 8 
Gryffindors in Harry's year (possibly 10 if you believe there are 2 
as-yet-introduced girls in Harry's year based on the time that Harry's 
class fought the boggart in Lupin's DADA class).  There are also only 20 
pairs of earmuffs when Harry's Gryffindors have double herbology with 
the Hufflepuffs, and 20 cauldrons when Harry's Gryffindors have double 
potions with the Slytherins (and 20 broomsticks when they have flying 
lessons with the Slytherins).  Unless there are 110 Ravenclaws in 
Harry's year, his year is much too small to be 1/7th of a 1,000 member 
student body.

Penny





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Feb 18 18:12:29 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 18:12:29 -0000
Subject: How Many Students at Hogwarts FILK
Message-ID: <a4rg6d+h7dj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35407

How Many Students at Hogwarts in All
A filk by Pippin, to the tune of One Hundred Bottles of Beer
Dedicated to Lexicon Steve

One thousand students at Hogwarts in all
One thousand students in all
Sitting at tables or crowding the Ball
One thousand students at Hogwarts in all

Eight hundred students at Hogwarts in all
Eight hundred students in all
Two hundred Slyths hoping Harry will fall
Four times two hundred are students in all

Two hundred eighty are students in all
Two hundred eighty in all
Seven years, Houses four, ten per roll call
Makes two hundred eighty at Hogwarts, that's all

How many students at Hogwarts in all
How many students in all
You'll be excused for being bemused
Someone named Jo has her numbers confused.




From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Mon Feb 18 18:19:53 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 18:19:53 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore (Was:Could the Stone have been Not Destroyed?)
In-Reply-To: <F186TRhlQnNE6f17ro4000012a7@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a4rgk9+77i7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35408

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Kyli Wayment" <k_wayment at h...> wrote:
> 
> >>I
> >>mean, why would Dumbledore
> >>even _let_ HRH go down to get the stone?
> 
> Andrew wrote:
> 
> >Ermm...'let'?  IIRC, this particular escapade was done against the
>will of 
> >Prof
> >D.  After all, where in canon does it state the he
> >*specifically*  *permitted* this?
> 
> I agree that Prof D didn't *specifally* *permit* that Harry go after
the 
> Stone, but in canon, it says (Ch. 17 SS/PS, page 302 US edition)
"...I think 
> he sort of wanted to give me a chance....I reckon he had a pretty
good idea 
> that were going to try, and instead of stopping us, he just taught
us enough 
> to help. I don't think it was an accident that he let me find out
how the 
> mirror worked....."
>   So, that may mean exactly what comes to the brain, but, if yout
hink about 
> it, it kind of sounds like Dumbledore *knew* the Stone would be gone
after 
> by Voldemort, so he practically told Harry that he could get it.
>   I don't know.... This is just a thought that has been on my mind
for a 
> while, and I could be completely wrong about Dumbledore, not that I'm 
> judging, but, like I said, that thought has been on my mind lately.
It could 
> go either way.
>   
Dumbledore not only knew Harry would go after the stone, he set the
whole thing up so that Harry *could*. This is why, I believe:

1. It cannot be a coincidence that Harry was with Hagrid when he
recovered the stone. Dumbledore sent Hagrid to collect Harry and get
the stone at the same time.

2. It is also no coincidence that the stone was retrieved the day
Quirrell broke into Gringotts. Dumbledore must have known what had
happened to Quirrell in Albania and what Voldemort was up to. He
brought the stone to Hogwarts to protect it, yes, but he also knew
Voldemort would follow it. Perfect opportunity to let Harry confront him.

3. As has been mentioned, the Mirror of Erised was the only real
protection the stone had. Quirrell and Voldemort would have no problem
getting through the other kinds of "protection" surrounding the stone
(though it did slow them down some). The mirror was kind of a monkey
trap--you can't pull your hand out until you let go of the fruit--that
Voldemort could never foil.

4. Dumbledore gave Harry the Cloak of Invisibility for Christmas,
telling him to "use it wisely." What could that mean except "go
roaming about the school after hours to figure out this mystery"? 

5. It's therefore no coincidence that Harry found the Mirror of
Erised. After Dumbledore tells Harry how the mirror works, he says
"The Mirror will be moved to a new home tomorrow, Harry, and I ask you
not to go looking for it again. If you ever do run across it, you will
now be prepared." At the time, Harry probably thought the last
sentence meant that he wouldn't waste away in front of it, but I think
he was referring to the confrontation with Voldemort. (And, by the
way, the stone was probably in the mirror the whole time (even before
Christmas?), "unprotected" by the other spells.)

6. Some have suggested, with reason, that the tests required the
cooperation of all three to pass and were deliberately set up this
way. The only test that didn't have this quality was the troll, which
Dumbledore knew would have been defeated by Quirrell before Harry met
up with it.

7. That the test was ultimately meant for Harry alone is shown in
Snape's potions test. Only one person can make it through to the
mirror. Dumbledore counted on that one person being Harry. (If no one
was meant to get to the stone, ALL the vials would contain poison.)

8. Dumbledore was counting on Harry to figure out where the stone was
and who was after it. When Harry asks him later about the fate of
Nicolas Flamel, he brightens up: "Oh, you know about Nicolas?" said
Dumbledore, sounding quite delighted. "You *did* do the thing
properly, didn't you?" The "thing" was the mystery Dumbledore had set
up for Harry.

9. It's possible that Dumbledore was not fooled in the least by the
fake MoM message, instead understanding that Quirrell was making his
move. He "leaves" Hogwarts, but he probably doesn't go far. (He tells
Harry that he makes it as far as London, but I wonder...) As Hermione
later recounts "we were dashing up to the owlery to contact Dumbledore
when we met him in the entrance hall--he already knew--he just said,
'Harry's gone after him, hasn't he?' and hurtled off to the third floor."

10. Ron then asks, "D'you think he meant you to do it? Sending you
your father's cloak and everything?" Harry responds (after Hermione's
obligatory horrified reaction), "I think he sort of wanted to give me
a chance. I think he knows more or less everything that goes on here,
you know. I reckon he had a pretty good idea we were going to try, and
instead of stopping us, he just taught us enough to help. I don't
think it was an accident he let me find out how the mirror worked.
It's almost like he thought I had the right to face Voldemort if I
could...." I don't think this is Harry?s personal interpretation. I
think this is JKR's message to the reader.

I wondered what would possess Dumbledore to not only allow, but to
arrange for, a first-year student to confront Voldemort (weak, yes,
but Quirrell wasn't). He must have known that Quirrell wouldn't be
able to touch Harry because the spell that protected him against AK in
the first place was still working. But as he says, "I feared I might
be too late.... For one terrible moment there, I was afraid [the
effort to keep Quirrell off you had killed you]." Ah well, I guess
that there is no reward without risk. But what a risk!

--Dicentra, who's always glad to enlighten the masses :)




From margdean at erols.com  Mon Feb 18 19:42:17 2002
From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:42:17 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco vs Ron (Was Re: Musings on Draco0
References: <F72rJbflUTs8ASqzv810001c8d3@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <3C715919.6E8774E6@erols.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35409

Jake Storm wrote:
> 
> >From: "gideoner4" <gideoner4 at yahoo.com>
> >Still, I am intrigued by the slapping incident PoA, where Hermione
> >slapped Draco and all Draco did was mutter "c'mon" to his two thugs
> >and left.  In all honesty, I haven't got a clue what's Draco's motive
> >behind that. Was he simply scared of Hermione? Or maybe he did not
> >want to cause trouble? But why? He could have hexed Hermione right
> >then and there. But he left.
> 
> I speculate that no real reading of Draco's character is needed. He was in
> shock. How many of his fellow Slytherins have ever stood up to him? Has he
> ever been struck by a classmate before? By a *girl* before? I think it
> likely that he was simply shocked that a Gryffindor, a *girl* and a
> *mudblood* would dare to offer him the gross insult of a physical assault.

Could he also be indoctrinated from childhood =not= to hit a
girl?  Granted that the Malfoys are pretty sorry specimens of
English aristocracy, they still might train their boys that way. 
It's really only male chauvinism in disguise, you know.  ;)


--Margaret Dean
  <margdean at erols.com>



From sarah at mcfarland.co.uk  Mon Feb 18 18:42:54 2002
From: sarah at mcfarland.co.uk (S)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 18:42:54 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco vs Ron (Was Re: Musings on Draco0
In-Reply-To: <a4qls4+548l@eGroups.com>
References: <a4q652+va7r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020218183508.02e61c80@pop.ntlworld.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35410

gideoner4 at yahoo.com wrote:

>Still, I am intrigued by the slapping incident PoA, where Hermione
>slapped Draco and all Draco did was mutter "c'mon" to his two thugs
>and left.  In all honesty, I haven't got a clue what's Draco's motive
>behind that. Was he simply scared of Hermione? Or maybe he did not
>want to cause trouble? But why? He could have hexed Hermione right
>then and there. But he left.

I read that as a mixture of two things. Firstly, he was so shocked that 
Hermione had acted in what was, then, a very out of character way, that he 
simply had no idea how to react. Secondly, he might have been thinking that 
hexing a girl wouldn't exactly be good for his image. Not that he'd be too 
much of a "gentleman" to attack a girl, of course - more that he might feel 
weak if he had to resort to hexing her, whereas Ron and Harry would be fair 
game.

I've only read the books through once (finished GoF last night) so I'm not 
well-up on what order everything happens in - but I think it was only 
*after* that incident that Draco hexed Hermione for the first time.

Hmm, it's an interesting fact that women seem to be able to get away with 
slapping men far often than men could get away with slapping women.


>Now as I said I didn't know what could
>have been going on inside Draco's head at that time. But I want to
>believe that Draco is hopefully still redeemable, and there's a
>spark of basic human goodness left in him.

Well, that probably applies to pretty much everyone. Snape used to be a 
Death Eater, but he left, voluntarily. Sirius once tried to feed Snape to a 
werewolf - but he turned out okay. There's no reason to believe that Draco 
*won't* get redeemed - it's just that I haven't seen anything to imply it's 
going to happen.

~Say
(first post from a newbie: hello, everyone)





From gideoner4 at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 18 19:07:48 2002
From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (gideoner4)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 19:07:48 -0000
Subject: Draco vs Ron (Was Re: Musings on Draco0
In-Reply-To: <a4r4gh+ogcc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4rje4+4d00@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35411


> 
>**** I can't understand why so many people speculate that Draco may 
be 
> abused physically.  Where is the evidence of that?  Lucius is 
> disappointed in his son's performance in his classes; very 
parental 
> and caring, IMO.  Lucius and Narcissa are also very giving - Draco 
> gets the best brooms to fly with and lots of sweets from home.  He 
is 
> well protected by his parents.  I'm not saying his parents are 
great; 
> Draco is spoiled and being taught quite well to hate, but that 
does 
> not translate to me that his parents hit him. ****


Me too, I don't see the anything that could could be evidence of 
physical abuse, but I know many people who believed that, so I can't 
help but think. Maybe because Lucius is depicted as a real lowlife 
and a Death Eater, and that makes people think that he is capable of 
doing everything evil.  






From sarah at mcfarland.co.uk  Mon Feb 18 19:17:01 2002
From: sarah at mcfarland.co.uk (S)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 19:17:01 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: 1000 hogwarts students, but so little
  in harry's year, my opinion
In-Reply-To: <a4rau2+kkgt@eGroups.com>
References: <001401c1b7fa$a3dbc2c0$9600000a@NEWPC>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020218191515.02e65bc0@pop.ntlworld.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35412

ffionmiles at hotmail.com wrote:

>Joris was discussing how many pupils are at Hogwarts - and due to the
>Voldemort scare, there ought tob e less.  this does ring true -
>however, in a quidditch match, it is said that there were '200
>Slytherin fans' at one end.

Does it say anywhere that all the fans are pupils? It is possible that a 
lot of them were past pupils, Hogsmeade resisdents, or just Quidditch fans 
who lived in the general area.

~Say





From saramull at optonline.net  Mon Feb 18 19:18:31 2002
From: saramull at optonline.net (sarah28962000)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 19:18:31 -0000
Subject: Mrs. Norris and the name "Argus"
Message-ID: <a4rk27+63kg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35413

Just wanted to mention that I recently read that Argus in Greek 
Mythology not only had 100 eyes, but was set to guard Io, after her 
lover Zeus *turned her into a cow (!)* to save her from Hera's 
wrath.  Get it ? Of course, then poor Argus gets killed by Hermes and 
his eyes put on a peacock tail, so I don't know how far this analogy 
might lead...Hermes = Hermione? also didnt Percy have an owl named 
Hermes? but I can't quite picture either one killing Filch.

Sarah





From msn.tsf at hccnet.nl  Mon Feb 18 18:02:07 2002
From: msn.tsf at hccnet.nl (Yoris)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 19:02:07 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: 1000 hogwarts students, but so little in harry's year, my opinion
References: <a4rau2+kkgt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007901c1b8a6$61843220$9600000a@NEWPC>

No: HPFGUIDX 35414

Well Harry's own generation is probably the smallest coz the year Harry was
born Voldemort was at the highest of his powers, the year after Harry's
probably already has some baby's from after-Voldemort, as they where
probably not scared for their childrens future on the start of Voldemorts
power cause they didn't know enough at that moment and they would probably
have thought of it as just a temporary things, but the longer his power
continued the more people feared it as going to last for a very long time...
probably the birth rates were like this:
years before Voldemort:
150
150
150
150 (only a little varriating, stable birth rates)
years while Voldemort was on power
145
140 (each year of voldemorts ruling people start getting more scared about
the longer-term future)
135
130
125
120
year Voldemort was defeated
115 (all the children from this year are still
howdoyoucallitinproperenglishwellletsjustsay created in the time Voldemort
ruled)
years after:
150 (some of the children still being created under Voldemort's ruling, but
others are already created on the extra childwish after war)
170 (the worrying stops and they can finally start thinking about their
childwish)
160
150 (birth rates are stabilizing again)
150

oh and I used just some example numbers and numbers of years

Joris

----- Original Message -----
From: "ffimiles" <ffionmiles at hotmail.com>
To: <HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 5:42 PM
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: 1000 hogwarts students, but so little in
harry's year, my opinion


> Joris was discussing how many pupils are at Hogwarts - and due to the
> Voldemort scare, there ought tob e less.  this does ring true -
> however, in a quidditch match, it is said that there were '200
> Slytherin fans' at one end.  Now, we could argue that Slytherin
> parents would have had babies at this point without fear!  But, as I
> presume the houses must be roughly equal in the amount o, we can only
> assume that there are 800 pupils in the school.
> This, however, does not tally with Harry's class - there appears to
> be just 10 in itt who wants to nitpick - I'm sure there are more in
> the year/class, it's just that it wouldurintroduce us to too many
> additional, non-central characters - we just wouldn't care about
> them, and wouldn't get any depth at all.
>
> But enough of this pedantacism [have made up spelling of that]
> Ffi




From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Mon Feb 18 19:53:37 2002
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:53:37 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Imperius Curse (was: Re: Ron Going To The Dark Side), and Snape on the Quidditch Pitch
In-Reply-To: <f05010400b895c4467c60@[199\.174\.15\.208]>
References: <a4c09r+47ao@eGroups.com> <f05010400b895c4467c60@[199.174.15.208]>
Message-ID: <10782201559.20020218115337@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35415


Sunday, February 17, 2002, 1:24:49 PM, Jennifer Boggess Ramon wrote:

JBR> Why does this paint him out as special?  Only three people so far 
JBR> have managed to throw of Imperius "on stage", as it were - Harry, 
JBR> Crouch Jr., and Crouch Sr.  In the second case, it took him eleven 
JBR> years to manage the feat.  In the third case, it took him several 
JBR> months, and drove him mad in the process.  

Crouch Sr. wasn't mad -- He just seemed to be to Harry becuase he
would plead to see Dumbledore one minute and issue executive orders to
a tree the next.  Harry didn't realize he was witnessing someone
fighting the Imperius Curse, going in and out of its grip.

-- 
Dave




From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu  Mon Feb 18 20:24:21 2002
From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:24:21 -0000
Subject: Lucius, backstories, redemption, old=new again
In-Reply-To: <a4r4vu+59jc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4rntm+g8g5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35416

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

> Yes, now that you mention it, Lucius is going to be very important
> and is in desperate need of a serious backstory too, doesn't
> he?  ::ignores collective groan and eye-roll from list members::
>

Happy to oblige, Cindy. Now, you do realize that all the bouncing back
and forth you, Elkins, Eileen, and Tabouli have been indulging in
lately is fanfic, right?

So I think it's time to trot out my Lucius backstory, every bit as
canon-based as your latest theories on Avery, the Lestranges, and
Bertha, as well as older gems such as FLIRTIAC, Neville, and LOLLIPOPS.

Cindy:
> Lucius is almost as mysterious as Snape, isn't he?  He seems to have
> money, influence and a proper trophy wife in the legitimate wizarding
> world, but for some reason, that isn't enough.  No, Lucius has to
> take up with Voldemort -- Mr. All-Knowing, Mr. All-Powerful,
> Mr. "Phoenix Tears, I Forgot".
>

Okay, based on Draco's remarks in CoS (before his father's time, etc.)
and the rivalry between Lucius and Arthur, many on the list believe
Lucius and Arthur to have been contemporaries at Hogwarts. Based on
the ages of the Weasley children, and the upper limit of 50 years ago
on Lucius, he cannot be older than about 59 (if he started at Hogwarts
the year after Riddle opened the chamber)--I suspect he's actually
younger--say 45 in CoS.

The disconnect is *why* Lucius follows Voldemort, and we must also
reconcile that hidden chamber and all the school stuff, as well as how
he kept himself out of Azkaban.

My theory is that his *father* was a schoolboy friend and confidante
of Riddle's. Together they went to Europe and pursued the dark
arts--but Tom was a little more committed to them than Malfoy Sr. I
also time this conveniently just before the fall of Grindlewald in
1945. They joined Grindlewald's followers, but several realized that
Grindy was becoming a little unbalanced. Riddle and Malfoy were among
a small group who tried to assassinate their erstwhile lord. But
before they could do the job, Dumbledore and his merry band arrived on
the scene and stopped him for them. Riddle fled to safety, but Malfoy
was cursed by one of Grindlewald's loyal followers--a wizard who was
killed by an overeager wizard on Dumbldore's side. Malfoy, true to the
family fashion, told his story to the good guys, that he was trying to
"escape" and "help" them defeat Grindlewald, and came home also a hero.

Now we have the Malfoy name and wealth, but also the thanks of a
grateful nation to consider when judging Lucius.

But that's not all! Because the curse, being a dark curse and
belonging to a dead dark wizard, worked its magic over Malfoy Sr. for
the rest of his life. He used dark magic of his own to prolong his
health and partially counteract the curse's effects, but gradually, it
won. By the time Lucius was 8, for example, his father was confined to
a wheelchair forever.

Now, no Malfoy would take that sort of thing lying down, right? So Dad
enlisted young Lucius's assistance, helping him research and
increasingly relying on him to run things when the old man could not.
So from an early age, Lucius had responsibility thrust upon him, and
also was instilled with a deep hatred/fear of death, and a lot of
background in the Dark Arts. The anti-Muggle prejudice I believe is a
longstanding Malfoy attitude (not specific to this generation) and one
that goes back much further and was enforced by Lucius's parents. But
the obsession with his own mortality...that ate at him from a young
age, as he watched his father decay before him and not a mediwizard in
the world could do a thing.

Lucius's father died when Lucius was in his final year at Hogwarts. A
mere stripling, he suddenly found himself in complete control of the
family's interests. He's also very vulnerable. Bring Voldemort into
this equation, add a dash of mystery and the promise of a link to "the
father he never knew," and we begin to forge a twisted relationship
between the two. Voldemort says he has always been able to charm those
he needed--Lucius is no exception. He charms him with tales of a
father in the prime of life, with assurances that they will conquer
death together, with a common belief that the influence of Muggles and
Muggle-born wizards must be eradicated from society, and most
importantly, that Lucius's own son will never have to grow up without
a father. Lucius buys Voldemort's offer of friendship hook, line, and
sinker.

The flaw in Lucius's logic, as I see it, is that he assumes that his
physical existence, as a healthy, intelligent, wealthy, powerful man
provides enough of a role model for Draco. He doesn't have as tight a
handle on his self-control as he thinks he does, but even beyond that
lapse in character, I think he genuinely doesn't know what to do with
his child. I believe, from their brief interaction in Borgin and
Burkes, that he is severely disappointed in Draco, but he hasn't the
first idea how to reach him, save the granting or denial of material
gratification. I think Lucius, because of his father's affliction,
never realized how much *parenting* his father really did, so he's
unable to pass it on to Draco. He was always (in his mind) dutiful and
responsible, so Draco's constant excuses grate. Also, Lucius is at
heart a selfish bastard who can't really see beyond his own desires,
no matter how much he believes it's for his loved ones, or even civic
duty.

For what it's worth, I *do* think he loves his wife and son. I *do*
think he thinks he's doing what he must (Tom's diary, DE, etc.). I
don't think he shows good judgment going about it, and I do think that
he's been corrupted from years of exposure to Dark Arts and using them
or whatever means is at hand to get what he wants.

Oh--the business with the Ministry. Well, I think they *wanted* to
believe that someone as prominent as Lucius Malfoy, son of such a
revered family, wasn't a willing participant in Voldemort's plans. And
I think he put together such a convincing story--using "real" facts
such as how Voldemort preyed on his grief over his father and the
pressure of inheriting an empire at 17--to gloss over his obvious
collusion along the way.

More Cindy:
> And when Voldemort falls, Lucius never seems to contemplate just
> picking right up where Voldemort left off.  After all, Lucius now
> knows not to attack Harry directly, and that he will need a basilisk
> or something really fancy to get the job done.  With a little quiet
> contemplation, Lucius might be able to figure a way out of the Harry
> problem without killing Harry at all.  Yet Lucius doesn't do
> anything.  He just whines about being under the Imperius Curse and
> goes back to his hum-drum little suburban life, picking on house
> elves for sport, where he apparently doesn't even have a job or
> anything.
>

I think that Lucius, being cunning and intelligent, was using
Voldemort for his own purposes as much as V was using him. For ex., I
mentioned that they have the same goals--well, in name, anyway. I
think they both seek immortality, definitely, and I think both have a
deep rooted hatred of the Muggle influence on wizard society. But when
push comes to shove, does anyone think Lucius would actually believe
that Voldemort would allow any of his henchmen to join him in ultimate
victory over death? Or once he has achieved it, do they become
superfluous?

I believe that Lucius was along for the ride, but hoped to position
himself to double-cross Voldemort somewhere, or at least be valued
enough that he would remain indispensable.

After Voldemort disappears, the motives change. Lucius probably never
cared particularly about Harry (unless of course something about Harry
holds the key to immortality, which is not as yet supported by the
canon). He probably knew that there was no way, without the support of
the DE's, and without the fear of Voldemort, to win an all-fronts war
for wizarding domination, so why bother?

Far better to fade back, assume a properly penitent and shame-faced
manner, and seek less brutal methods of achieving his goals. Oh, yes,
in my version, he went to the Ministry within 48 hours to "confess"
his involvement (under Imperius, of course).

After all, it's *still* important that Draco have a father, not one
who is dead, or a ghost, or soulless, or imprisoned in Azkaban.

Cindy:
> Is this because the Death Eaters really don't stand for much, so
> Lucius sees no reason to continue their goals, whatever they are?  Is
> it because so many Death Eaters died and Lucius doesn't think he can
> persuade anyone else to join up with him?  Is Lucius on an extended
> paternity leave caring for Draco so that he misses all of the action
> in Fall 1981?  There *must* be a reason.
>

Yes, they all have their own agendae, which are subordinate to the
Biggies of Immortality and Wizard preservation.

No, Lucius as I just laid it out *does* continue his search for those
goals, just without the widespread support. He works now through his
power and influence, not his might with the wand.

Yes, I think that in the wake of the tumultuous and shocking events of
31 October 1981, many of the DE's scattered. I think that might have
been part of a plan--in case anything should happen. I have a feeling
many of the DE's "covered their tracks" on 1-2 November and set their
stories straight before they could accidentally incriminate one
another. The reports of chaos in the period immediately following
Voldemort's defeat could easily support meetings of the cells, all
putting their alibis together (as well as several trying to run). They
also had the convenient "smokescreen" of Peter and Sirius's little
drama to provide distraction. (Not that they knew
Peter=Wormtail=Secret Keeper necessarily, but that they knew Sirius
would be blamed and at least be first in line as Public Enemy #1.)

No, I don't believe Lucius has a traditional job. Others have made him
a mogul in publishing or some other industry, but I believe it is
family money, gained over the years through multiple business
interests. The Malfoys would not stoop to owning and personally
running a family business, IMO, even if it is a fantastically
lucrative one. Rather, I see him owning controlling interest, or
stock, or the wizarding equivalent, in many companies, and his time
being taken up as a member of any number of governing or directorial
boards, some charitable, others entrepreneurial. We know he served on
the Board of Governors for Hogwarts for at least one year. It's
debatable whether CoS was his only year on the Board: on the one hand,
it's contrary to his own advice to Draco to start stirring up trouble
when he's just arrived at the party; on the other, it's unlike Draco
not to brag about it prior to CoS if his father were already on the
Board. We also know Malfoy made a large donation to St. Mungo's,
though I prefer to think it's his mother (and/or Narcissa) who serves
there on a volunteer basis (this I also attribute to the family's
gratitude for St. M's help with his father for so many years).

So I think he meets with the family broker, with boards, with people
wanting a Malfoy Family Foundation grant, with Ministry Committees
where he has been asked to serve--all "volunteer" work, but work that
advances the Malfoy reputation, wealth, and agenda.

Interestingly, the trading cards list him as "underminister," or
something like it, according to report, but I don't see him being a
civil servant, even if wizard politics is more like American, with
campaigning and general elections to top jobs (and of course [corrupt]
businessmen going into politics). No, while I think the current
administration seems to defer to him, I don't think he's Fudge's
subordinate/deputy. He certainly doesn't act like he *works* for the
Ministry, at any rate.


And in the interest of once again regurgitating topics, on the theme
"everything old is new again," something (brief, I hope) on Draco's
redemption.

Well...this ties in to everything I've just told you about Lucius. He
doesn't connect to his son. He threatens him, he bullies him
(verbally, *never* physically, IMO--that's part of Draco's problem),
he rewards him with material goods (inconsistently, btw) and
apparently indulges Narcissa's tendency to spoil him (sweets, choosing
Hogwarts over Durmstrang despite his reservations about Dumbledore).
But...he doesn't show his love in any meaningful way.

I've said before I think Draco is supposed to evoke comparison to
Snape in readers' minds. I think their family backgrounds are just
about diametrically opposed (that's another post), but I think that
Snape is the "grown-up" version of a redeemed Draco. Perhaps this is
reinforced by some parallels in my mind between each one's
relationship with his father (again, a post for another day). But I
think Snape is there to provide a surrogate parent role for the Slyth
kids--especially those at risk of becoming DE's. A recent post noted
that Snape was "playing" Draco, setting him up to believe that Snape
liked him, the implication being that in the future, he will betray
the boy. I don't think so.

I do think Draco needs to be betrayed somehow if he is going to
change. But as I've said before, I don't think that needs to be pushed
into center stage for the audience to become aware of it. I think that
Snape is trying to gain the kids' trust, a difficult task among
Slytherins at the best of times, but even more challenging in the
current climate. For the record, I don't think that Draco, as he is at
the end of book 4, would go to ANY teacher--even Snape--if he felt a
crisis of faith, trying to reconcile Dad's actions/beliefs with any
pangs of conscience he might experience. But I don't think Snape's
going to get any closer to Draco by alienating himself from the rest
of the DE's. He has a really tight rope to walk--be too harsh on the
anti-Muggle attitudes and he gives himself away as a traitor, and
loses them; be too lenient on the attitudes and he allows them to
fall, and loses them.

The best he can hope for is maybe to catch them on the way down.

Gwen (who refuses point-blank to participate in the list's ongoing
cyber-action role playing game, but you kids have fun.)




From Filmforthefuture at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 18 20:57:32 2002
From: Filmforthefuture at hotmail.com (filmforthefutureuk)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:57:32 -0000
Subject: Release date of OoP
Message-ID: <a4rprs+poqu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35418

If the publishers are planning to release the book to coincide with 
British school holidays then it will probably be released in April as 
this would coincide with the Easter holidays. I doubt that they would 
wait until July as she will have probably finished it way before then.




From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Mon Feb 18 21:04:44 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:04:44 -0000
Subject: Number of Students
In-Reply-To: <3C7140FB.10109@swbell.net>
Message-ID: <a4rq9c+ctmm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35419

Penny wrote:

> I mention this not to cut off discussion, but merely to point out 
that 
> this particular issue has been discussed quite alot in the past and 
a 
> summary of the various arguments and theories can be found in the 
> Student Population section of the Hogwarts FAQ:
> 
> > http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/hogwarts.html

...which is well worth reading.

However, may I point out that another recent thread has been 'What do 
they learn in Arithmancy?'

Surely it's obvious: 10 x 4 x 7 = 1000.

That's pretty strong magic.

David, wondering if the Astronomy lessons can explain hours of daylit 
Quidditch practice after school in winter, pitch black mornings at 
5am in midsummer, and nightfall ten minutes after sunset in June 
(when Sirius catches Ron).




From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com  Mon Feb 18 20:42:18 2002
From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:42:18 -0000
Subject: Who was the Useful Spy?
References: <a4k056+feqg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000701c1b8bc$e25ea360$148bbc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 35420

Who was Dumbledore's spy?  One of the "useful spies" mentioned by Cornelius Fudge during the discussion about Sirius Black, betrayal, and the Fidelius Charm at The Three Broomsticks - PoA.  The spy who tipped Dumbledore off and enabled Lily and James Potter to go into hiding when Voldemort was looking for them?  

 

Conjectures.....  What if this * Useful Spy * was Snape in situ as a card carrying Death Eater?  As Dumbledore's inside man with Lord Voldemort and the DE's, Snape would be running a big risk.  There is no mention in the canon of Snape being involved in the trials of captured DE's which he would have been if he was involved in an official MOM DE hunt.  So the project could have been Dumbledore's alone - particularly with a MOM mindset that avoided independent and inherently risky action.  As Dumbledore is compelled to start organising the fight without MOM help at the end of GoF this would be a reasonable assumption.

 

As this was some time before Harry grew up and became a nominal "Dursley" this would give Snape plenty of time to abscond, for as yet un-revealed reasons, from the DE's and settle at Hogwarts.  This trust in Snape might, perhaps, refute the accusations of vampirism currently doing the rounds, as, if you were Albus Dumbledore would you realistically let anything near a school full of children that - without its daily pinta - turned into the equivalent of an addict out to find its next fix?  

 

Just an idea, of course.


Felicia 


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





From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu  Mon Feb 18 21:18:15 2002
From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:18:15 -0000
Subject: Who was the Useful Spy?
In-Reply-To: <000701c1b8bc$e25ea360$148bbc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>
Message-ID: <a4rr2n+lmm5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35421

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Felicia Rickmann" <felicia.rickmann at d...>
wrote:
> Conjectures.....  What if this * Useful Spy * was Snape in situ as a
card carrying Death Eater?

Many, many listies accept this as virtual fact. There is a great deal
of circumstantial evidence pointing to this connection. In fact, it is
one of the strong timbers laid along the hull of the Good Ship
LOLLIPOPS, as well the yard-arm for many a mast of other SHIP theories.

It's a little difficult to search for the backup on this one, but try
running "Potters tip" a few times, hitting the "Next" button on the
search engine in the archives, and you'll get many messages about this.


However, Felicia, I'm not sure I follow the logic that brought you to
refute the vampire theory. You make a reasonable argument (that
Dumbledore wouldn't allow a vamp to teach kids), but I just don't see
how you got there from where along the timeline it happened.

And furthermore, much as I would *like* to refute the vampire thing
once and for all (come on, book 5!), your point is inconclusive. After
all, Dumbledore accepted the risk of the werewolf. Or are you saying
there's a difference between vamps, who presumably need a daily fix
(though that's never been established in Rowling's universe), and
werewolves, who are human most of the time?

Either way, I'm not sure it flies. And I certainly don't understand
how it relates to how old Harry was when Snape started teaching.

Granted, the timeline would tell us something about D's level of trust
in ol' Sev, as well as how quickly he rose to head Slytherin House,
but in terms of being a vampire? What does it matter if Harry was 2 or 7?


Gwen




From pennylin at swbell.net  Mon Feb 18 21:37:24 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 15:37:24 -0600
Subject: Release Date for OOP: Speculation
Message-ID: <3C717414.7040300@swbell.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35422

Hi all --

I think I should point out a few matters regarding the potential release 
of OOP this year.

1.  The release date of July 8th for GoF was confirmed in a Scholastic 
press release on March 26th (roughly 3.5 mths beforehand in other 
words).  Rumors regarding the impending summer release of GoF had been 
circulating prior to March 26th.

2.  From all accounts, the publishers were forced to rush their printing 
deadlines to meet the confirmed release date of July 8th, causing a fair 
bit of havoc.  This suggests that they will in all likelihood give 
themselves more than 3.5 mths cushion room to see it through final 
edits, printing & distribution.  Also, I know nothing about marketing in 
any formal sense, but it strikes me that they'd want to have a 
reasonably long marketing time-frame to really drum up even more 
interest than there already is.  It's all about money, yes?  :--)

3.  IMO, there have been no trustworthy press reports that JKR has even 
completed OOP or that release is in any way imminent.  We've heard 
everything ranging from Feb 2002 (obviously not happening) to Spring 
2003.  It does not appear to me that there is any reliable basis for 
speculating at this point.  I think this is a sufficiently big enough 
deal that we will have reasonably solid press confirmation when the 
final editing is going on and when an announcement of a solid release 
date is imminent.

Penny




From moongirlk at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 18 22:23:44 2002
From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 22:23:44 -0000
Subject: Lupin's Edge/Twins' Edge? (was Why Suspect Lupin?)
In-Reply-To: <a4ljap+iqgu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4rutg+gemg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35423

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" <theennead at a...> wrote:
> Cindy wrote:
> 
> > Boy. This "Lupin Has Edge" theory presents some problems for me. 
> > I'm used to defending Lupin against full frontal assaults. He's a 
> > screw-up. He's too perfect. He's boring. He's dishonest. That I 
> > can handle.
> 
> <crossly>
> 
> Well, *I* most certainly can't.  Lupin is not a screw-up, and he 
> isn't 'too perfect,' and he is most certainly *not* boring!
> 
> Hmmph.  Who says such things?

I don't know who, but maybe there are some hanging out in the 
dungeons with Snape.  Let's go suss out their insecurities and use 
them against them!  Nevermind (sigh), I may find Edge hot, but I 
don't think I've actually got any.  
  
Cindy:
> > What we have here is a sneak attack. I can't really deny that 
Lupin 
> > has Edge. 
> 
Elkins
> 'Sneak attack?'  But Edge is *good,* Cindy.  Edge is really really 
> *good.*  Edge is...

Sexy?  Intriguing?  Powerful?  Yes, the more I've thought about it, 
the more I think Edge definitely is Good.

Cindy worried:
> > That bit about how his wand use is described as "lazy" is 
> > particularly upsetting, because it could very well be a bit of 
> > foreshadowing that Lupin won't finish the series in quite the 
> > heroic way I imagine. 
> 

Elkins replied lazily:
 
> Nah, I'm pretty sure Lupin's slated for heroic death.  It will be 
> very sad and noble, and we will all cry.

See, now I'm pretty sure Elkins has Edge (as she's just hit on one of 
my worst fears and has me frantic) and all the more sure that I 
don't, as I can't think about it in such an off-hand manner.  WHY oh 
why must my Lupin die?  Couldn't we kill off Sinistra and Vector?  
See - I'm offering two for the price of one!  I'd be sad, but at 
least I wouldn't have to call off work to have a memorial service in 
my jammies and write a eulogy to read to all the dust bunnies who 
will be in attendance.
 
> Eileen wrote:
> 
> > "'They call it the Dementor's Kiss,' said Lupin, with a slightly 
> > twisted smile."
> 
> > And at that moment, I was crying, "Harry! Harry! It's Sirius 
Black! 
> > When will you realize?" "Slightly twisted." That is awful. 

As for this, I never once thought Lupin was Sirius Black.  Thought 
never entered my mind.  I was too busy doing a happy dance that the 
kids got a new teacher that fulfilled my need for a yummy grownup 
male in the story and "whew"-ing that surely *this* DADA teacher 
wouldn't end up a baddie because he carried chocolate!  Bad people 
don't give you chocolate, right?  Right?  

And then Elkins soothed my fears about the gradual Edge epiphany I've 
been undergoing:
 
> Kimberley wrote:
> 
> > I tried and I tried to get caught up before commenting on this 
> > thread, but I'm all in this dark, sexy place Lupin-wise now, and 
I 
> > just can't wait.
> 
> Hi, Kimberley!  I remember that you leapt to my defense 'way back
> when I was claiming Lupin's dialogue in Shrieking Shack as mildly
> sadistic.  I always meant to continue with that thread, but it sort
> of fell by the wayside, so a belated thanks.

Of course!  Any time I can bask in the glow of Lupin's (mostly) self-
control, I'm there, and now I owe you for pointing out exactly why 
that is!

Thank you for the reassurance:
 
> No, no, no!  Not sick and twisted!  Not at all!
> 
> Of course it's sexy.  I mean, if someone has the insight to know how
> to really hurt you, then you've gotta figure they've got the insight
> to know how to really *please* you as well, right?
> 
> And besides, "could really hurt me...but never would."  That's sort 
> of the entire underlying dynamic of intimacy right there in a 
> nutshell, isn't it?
> 
> Relax.  You're normal.  
> 
Yay!  I'm normal!  AND I get to enjoy the Shack scene without feeling 
like a heel.  This is great!  I love Edge!  Ahh, that feels so 
liberating.

And since I'm feeling all liberated... I thought maybe I'd try to 
bring you around a little on the subject of Fred and George, if I may.

You wrote, among other things:

>Their constant attacks on Percy, though...well, there's malice 
>there. There's definitely malice there, and more than a shade of 
>harrassment, as well. But it's nice that even within their treatment 
>of Percy, we see a wide range. When they manhandle him into his 
>Weasley jumper and insist that he spend Christmas with them because 
>they're "family," their behavior is certainly bullying, and I'm 
>sure that it was very annoying to Percy -- but I'm equally sure that 
>it made him feel loved. Unlike, say, their unceasing attacks on his 
>badges, which I don't think made him feel in the least bit 
>appreciated or valued.

I kinda think that this, like the example you mentioned with Ginny, 
is not about malice, but about an attempt to "cheer" him up, although 
in another sense of the word.  Percy's wound up tight, and takes 
everything (including himself) very seriously.  From the beginning 
I've gotten the impression that he's not a particularly happy guy.  
Other than the joyful relief he expresses when Ron ends up not dead 
in the lake, the most pleasant emotion I can think of him having 
shown is satisfaction in re: his accomplishments.  While that's great 
and all, what will happen on the occasions when he fails if the only 
happiness he gets is from success?  I get the impression that the 
twins' teasing is just an ill-advised attempt at getting him to 
lighten up.  I think Fred and George are trying (in the way that is 
their specialty) to teach him to laugh at himself.  Obviously it 
backfires and instead he just gets mad, but I think they feel like 
even that is better than distance and impatience, which is what he 
usually displays toward the twins and Ron.  It's obvious they love 
their brother, or they wouldn't bother forcing him to spend Christmas 
with them, so I don't think the rest of the teasing is malicious.  I 
think it's like you said, sometimes practial jokes and teasing 
backfire, and they haven't yet learned to apologize and try a 
different tack.

Now, for the harder bit to explain, you also mentioned:

>I still say that the Hissing of Malcolm Baddock was a DEAD GIVEAWAY, 
>they showed their true natures there, all right, oh yes, indeedy

Hmmm... the hissing.  That's a hard one.  They were probably hissing 
at Slytherin, not really the kid himself, and I doubt they even 
considered that he might hear them.  I don't think they were being 
intentionally malicious toward the little guy.  That probably doesn't 
make you feel any better, but it's the best I can do for the moment - 
I'll keep thinking about it.  I looked for Baddock in PS/SS and had 
no luck, I'll have to check in GoF.  Maybe I can come up with 
something that would make you feel better about that bit.

So basically what I'm saying is that Fred and George are sort of  
thoughtless, but I think they mean well.  Judging from the way they 
zoom in on Percy's sore points, they do have the insight, so when 
they grow up enough to realize how they push people's buttons maybe 
they'll develop the kind of strenght and control that will make them 
characters with Edge too.  After all, with the war on and practically 
everyone predicting a Weasley will die (please no!), they're bound to 
be doing a lot of growing up soon.  

I think maybe I'm still too distracted by Lupin's Edge to do this 
properly, but that's it for now.

kimberly
lover of Weasleys big and small




From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com  Mon Feb 18 23:22:30 2002
From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:22:30 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Rumour about Book 5 release date
References: <a4rpaq+4g86@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C718CB6.10DB8323@kingwoodcable.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35424

filmforthefutureuk wrote:

> 
> True, however the 2 week Easter holidays occur in April, so they may
> be wishing to release it to coincide with them and not the 6 week
> summer holiday.
> 

We had *months* of promotions for GoF here in the states, so I think
we'd already be seeing ads for the new book if they were going to
release it 2 months. I don't think we'll see if before July, and I think
that's wishful thinking. I did read somewhere (rumor of course) that the
publishers were going to try to release the books at the same time for
the UK/US.

I've got a nice long bookshelf filled with books that I'm reading in the
meantime. 

-Katze



From finwitch at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 18 23:57:07 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 23:57:07 -0000
Subject: Sirius/Wands/Book#5 theory
Message-ID: <a4s4cj+5kf1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35425

About Wizard-authorities not doing that priori-incantatem...

Sirius got Pettigrew on foot, pretty soon, therefore, near Potter-
house. Now, Peter shouts: "Sirius! How could you?" - totally 
surprising Sirius, who is angry with PP...

While PP kills the Muggles (holding his wand behind his back) Sirius 
searches for his wand, but recalls, too late, that his wand is in a 
bag fastened on his motorcycle... or did he have it?

Peter cuts off his finger(using a spell or something), summons the 
rats, drops his wand, transforms and escapes. (If he wants to be 
believed dead, he must leave his wand behind!) And the spell that 
gives the latest spell... The latest spell was the summoning of rats 
or transformation into rat! If they did use a spell that spits out 
spells until it shows the AK - they'd summon it on Peter's wand and 
think it was Sirius'... (So... Peter's wand is investicated... They'd 
assume Sirius had killed Pettigrew, transformed him and his wand - 
and killed those Muggles... So, anyway, Peter's wand is the one 
snapped, not Sirius')...

Now, Peter's out - without a wand - and he needs one. He gets 
Voldemort's wand! After that he finds his way into a pet shop and 
into Weasley's home... as Percy's rat. So um - PP had that wand all 
along, so Voldemort's wand was at Hogwarts, Voldemort as a spirit in 
a turban, with two followers...!

As "someone close" to Harry is to die(and this isn't Sirius, I hope) -
after Sirius is awaiting his trial, willing to try without PP. This, 
of course, would make Harry extremely depressed. He'd want to get to 
his parents by killing himself (won't succeed, gets put into hospital 
and kept there) - Dumbledore(and if he's dead, Hermione or Lupin) 
asks him what was his latest Happy Thought (getting to live with 
Sirius?)... So that Harry's life is clearly dependent on Sirius 
getting out free! Now, PP gets a letter informing of this (Poor 
Sirius can't be contacted, he's in court/jail)...

Now, PP just might decide to pay his life-debt to Harry, walk into 
the court-room, make a confession, tell Sirius about Harry, transform 
and escape AGAIN. This is enough for Sirius to become free, but 
nothing ELSE is changed yet! But will he get to Harry before the 
godson dies by inherent magic... Sirius would get there by apparating 
to Shrieking Shack (which isn't on school grounds!-  only he needs a 
wand - quick stop with Ollivander...) and using the corridor... and 
gets to Harry, who's been spelled to disable him from hurting 
himself... Oh, add a coule of teachers, like Snape, to try to prevent 
Sirius - even McGonagall, who happened to witness Sirius' transform 
and begins to scold him for not registering.. finally getting to 
Harry, where McGonagall threatens to turn him in - Harry's wandless 
and uncontrolled magic curses McGonagall - Sirius asks if she thinks 
Harry'd find that kind of jumping amusing(as if it's her fault, 
although both she and Sirius know it was Harry's uncontrolled 
magic)... 

Harry will get better just for seeing Sirius - and when he finds out 
that Sirius got out, he feels even better... Then Hermione storms in 
and starts talking about OWLS (if it were Hedwig that died, this 
would give poor Harry a new fit, and Sirius would tell Hermione 
to "do someting useful, like keeping her mouth shut and get Harry 
chocolate" and finally Sirius figures that Harry needs Sunlight and 
lots of fun! - Sirius definately knows all about depression and how 
to recover from it)... And I'm sure AD would encertain Harry's Owls 
as reorganised (or Ms. McG if AD died)...




From jmmears at prodigy.net  Mon Feb 18 23:57:54 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 23:57:54 -0000
Subject: Release Date for OOP: Speculation
In-Reply-To: <3C717414.7040300@swbell.net>
Message-ID: <a4s4e2+7b90@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35426

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce <pennylin at s...> wrote:

> 
> 1.  The release date of July 8th for GoF was confirmed in a 
Scholastic 
> press release on March 26th (roughly 3.5 mths beforehand in other 
> words).  Rumors regarding the impending summer release of GoF had 
been 
> circulating prior to March 26th.
> 
>(some snippage)
> 
> 3.  IMO, there have been no trustworthy press reports that JKR has 
even 
> completed OOP or that release is in any way imminent.  We've heard 
> everything ranging from Feb 2002 (obviously not happening) to 
Spring 
> 2003.  It does not appear to me that there is any reliable basis 
for 
> speculating at this point.  I think this is a sufficiently big 
enough 
> deal that we will have reasonably solid press confirmation when 
the 
> final editing is going on and when an announcement of a solid 
release 
> date is imminent.
> 

In addition to all of Penney's points above, I'd like to add that 
sometime in the last month or so there was a press item indicating 
that JKR had not agreed to formally sign with Scholastic to publish 
book 5. I don't have the exact article at hand but I'm sure I read 
it in the Leaky Cauldron.  The gist of it was that Scholastic was 
quite concerned about continuing their relationship with Rowling and 
finally had to ask if they could "assume" that they would be 
publishing book 5.  They were told (not very reassuringly) that for 
the time being they could continue to assume this, but I've not 
heard anything to indicate that an agreement was reached.  It seems 
to me that the contract between JKR and Scholastic would have to be 
ironed out before any speculation on when book 5 will appear can be 
considered valid.

Jo Serenadust




From andrew_macian at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 19 00:13:11 2002
From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 16:13:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Rumour about Book 5 release date
In-Reply-To: <3C718CB6.10DB8323@kingwoodcable.com>
Message-ID: <20020219001311.92713.qmail@web9505.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35427

Greetings from Andrew!

Ah, the wheels of merchandising....
--- Katze <jdumas at kingwoodcable.com> wrote:
{snip}

> 
> We had *months* of promotions for GoF here in the
> states, so I think
> we'd already be seeing ads for the new book if they
> were going to
> release it 2 months. I don't think we'll see if
> before July, and I think
> that's wishful thinking. I did read somewhere (rumor
> of course) that the
> publishers were going to try to release the books at
> the same time for
> the UK/US.

Usually, the drones that fill publishers' marketing
departments need 90 days to line up all of the ad
placements, the merchandisng displays/caps, and the
author's tour for signings and other forms of public
display. Since we're not talking a simple mid-lister,
I would presume that the 90-day 'rule' would be a
minimum.  

Add to this the fact that pre-prod and printing will
eat at least that number of days, and I would offer
that a mid-July release date would be a bit tight.

Locus has no date posted, either, FWIW.

Can't speak to the UK side of getting OotP out, but
the above is based on actual book production that I've
seen.

> 
> I've got a nice long bookshelf filled with books
> that I'm reading in the
> meantime. 
> 

Hear, hear!  I've both professional and 'hobby'
reading stacks, as well as getting some writing done.

Cheers,

Drieux

=====
ICQ # 76184391

'Each game of chess means there's one less
      Variation left to be played;
 Each day got through means one or two less
      Mistakes remain to be made.'
      --'Chess' by Sir Tim Rice

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com



From finwitch at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 19 00:46:07 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:46:07 -0000
Subject: Number of Students
In-Reply-To: <a4rq9c+ctmm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4s78f+8hom@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35428

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" <dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
> Penny wrote:
> However, may I point out that another recent thread has been 'What 
do 
> they learn in Arithmancy?'
> 
> Surely it's obvious: 10 x 4 x 7 = 1000.
> 
> That's pretty strong magic.

LOL! I love that theory... Forget logic! We're talking about magic!
 
> David, wondering if the Astronomy lessons can explain hours of 
daylit 
> Quidditch practice after school in winter, pitch black mornings at 
> 5am in midsummer, and nightfall ten minutes after sunset in June 
> (when Sirius catches Ron).




From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 19 00:50:12 2002
From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:50:12 -0000
Subject: Snape as Vampire
Message-ID: <a4s7g4+ap84@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35429

I doubt he is.  Why?

* He is mean and nasty enough.  Why cheapen it by doing such a cliche?
* He is mean and nasty.  If he did have such a secret, wouldn't he 
try to keep a low profile?
* He is mean and nasty.  Everybody "knows" he wants the DADA job.  
Since he doesn't shirk from making enemies, surely some student 
sometime would pull a "Hermione" and add up the clues.  
* He is mean and nasty.  He has been personally horrible to 
Hermione.  Why would she cover for him?
* He is mean and nasty.  Why wouldn't someone in the know be offend 
once too often and pull a "Snape" and "let slip" he was a vampire?
* The MoM has to be aware of what he is.  Would you want your child 
studying at Hogwarts if you knew one of the teaches was a vampire?
* If Lupin knew, then Black knows.  Why didn't Sirius bring it up 
when he was warning Harry in GOF?
* If Lupin gave the vampire essay in retaliation for Snape's werewolf 
essay, he certainly took his time doing it.  Snape assigned his essay 
before Halloween.  Lupin assigned his the following spring, at least 
three months later.
* If Snape had his secret, I would think he would have been a bit 
more sympathetic to Lupin, another person with a secret.  Why would 
he "let slip" the werewolf story if Lupin could so easily retaliate?
* Why did not Fudge bring up the fact that Dumbledore employed 
vampires when he brought up werewolves and half-giants in GOF-36? 

These questions don't even touch the vampire-lore problems -- He has 
been seen in bright sunlight.  He wasn't deterred by Querill's 
Garlic.  He sees his reflection in GOF.  He bleeds.  He entered the 
Hospital wing without permission.  

I do admit that if he was a vampire, it would clear up a lot of 
questions, including what it is that made Dumbledore trust him, and 
the nature of the thing Snape needs to do now.  However, it would 
raise more questions than it would answer.

Marcus





From tabouli at unite.com.au  Tue Feb 19 01:24:15 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 12:24:15 +1100
Subject: Snape & Draco psychology, Mr Norris as Zeus, DEVIL
Message-ID: <003f01c1b8e4$3cf49240$8e53dccb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35430

More Eloise:
> One of the points of having houses in school is to promote healthy 
competition. I think Snape *is* a competitive person. McGonnagal's 
competitive too, in her own way, though obviously fairer.<

To add to this, I'd say that being competitive and being ambitious are things which tend to go together.  Moreover, as the Dark reputation of Slytherin suggests, a very ambitious person may well be tempted into "dirty" (outside the rules) tactics to achieve his/her aim, such as cheating (Slytherin Quidditch team), subterfuge (Draco's arm), manipulation (Lucius and the governors), undermining and thwarting the opposition (Draco and co in Dementor outfit), etc.etc. and get an unfair advantage.

Hmmm... looking at this list, those Malfoys really do look to be perfect Slytherins, don't they?  McGonagall, on the other hand, seems quite happy to play second fiddle to and look up to Dumbledore... she's the sort of person who wants a just competition, where everyone plays by the rules.

Brings up something I've always mused on... how about our ol' fave Severus?  What's his driving ambition these days?  Does he really want recognition, or it is revenge he really wants?  I'm always a bit sceptical about the notion that Snape's driving ambition is to win an Order of Merlin and the adulation of the people.  If he really wants adulation, why does he go out of his way to make himself disliked?  Clearly he doesn't want liking much, or doesn't know how to get it if he did (sure, he's nice to Draco, but I get the impression that there's a significant element of spiting Harry and deceiving Lucius there).  I think what Snape really wants is revenge-recognition.  He's bitter.  He's angry.  He's had a lifetime of being thwarted and victimised and ill-treated, and he has something to prove.  He wants to force those who wronged him to respect him.  His apparent desire for "adulation" is, IMO, more an "I'll show 'em" kind of spirit than a "I'll be famous and celebrated and loved" kind of spirit.  The latter is Lockhart's game, not Snape.

His apparently divided loyalties are interesting.  He doesn't seem averse to favouring Slytherins in class, or letting Draco get away with arranging top brooms for the team, or malingering, etc.  However, when it comes to the bigger things, like when people are injured in PoA, or when Harry's life is under threat from Quirreldemort in PS/SS, he acts in accordance with his loyalty to Dumbledore rather than his (presumed) Slytherin preference for revenge and spite.

Elkins:
> "why does Snape favor the Slytherins?" -- and 
> really, that's an impossible question to answer.  I think that he 
> does so for multiple reasons, and that the question of which is 
> the "primary" and which the "secondary" motive is probably not only 
> completely context-dependent, but also ultimately unanswerable.<

Hence, I think we *do* have some clues about Snape's motives.  Yes, they're context dependent... in the "small league", his loyalties are to Slytherin.  In the big league (life or death matters), and, note, discreetly, his loyalties are to Dumbledore.  The discretion bit is interesting.  Note that in the Shrieking Shack, while everyone is still conscious, he snarls and threatens and spits.  Even while Fudge and Dumbledore are about, he snarls and spits and bellows.  Yet when there's no-one to witness him, *that's* when he summons the stretchers and puts people on them, like a kind, responsible senior teacher.

Snarling and Slytherin-favouring in public, quietly responsible and loyal to D in private?  Come now, surely this says "image control".  After all, we *know* he was a spy.  I'm happy to buy the "favouring the Slytherins and being horrible as a smokescreen".  It's just convenient for him that those are his superficial natural tendencies anyway.  To spy effectively, he needs to present a consistent front with his pre-spy self, doesn't he?


Debbie on Draco:
> But he's worse than that:  the death wishes for 
Hermione that he expresses periodically, as you point out, go way 
beyond mere adolescent bullying and veer sharply in the direction of 
the sociopathic child who if left unchecked may take Daddy's arsenal 
to school one day for a murder-suicide rampage (though, in another 
glimmer of hope, he never threatens to carry out the threats himself).<

Mmmmmnahhhh.  From all the profiles of people who suddenly go on a sociopathic killing rampage I've ever read and heard about, it almost always seems to be the "quiet" ones, the oppressed ones, the ones who were victimised and degraded by their peers for years, and finally Snape, er, I mean, snap.  Their motivation is to gun down the hand that hit them.

Draco doesn't fit this profile at all.  He's hardly oppressed, for a start (wizard blood counting for less everywhere hardly cuts the mustard), he's the spoilt rich son of someone highly respected in the community, and has two close friends (oafish tho' they be) and, it seems, a girlfriend or at least an admirer.  He's far from a greasy loser who's victimised by his peers... he seems to be almost the Slytherin ringleader!  IMO, his run-ins with the Trio and Twins are the fights of children on the opposite sides of a war (whose parents, moreover, are high-ranking warriors), not signs of sociopathic tendencies.

Gwen:
> He doesn't connect to his son. He threatens him, he bullies him
(verbally, *never* physically, IMO--that's part of Draco's problem),
he rewards him with material goods (inconsistently, btw) and
apparently indulges Narcissa's tendency to spoil him (sweets, choosing
Hogwarts over Durmstrang despite his reservations about Dumbledore).
But...he doesn't show his love in any meaningful way.<

You know, whenever I read people talking about Draco being neglected and abused, I keep getting a whiff of cultural and era differences at work.  The modern ideal of parents who hug their children regularly, tell them they're great all the time, strive to be encouraging and supportive and complimentary about everything they do, democratic, explanatory, negotiation based parenting, etc.etc. is a very recent and, I think, particularly American development.  What gets construed as "abusive" and "authoritarian" these days was downright normal not long ago, and, I suspect, still *is* to some degree among the Britich aristocracy.  These are people who sent their seven year olds to icy boarding schools where they got the cane, ate ghastly food and had cold showers to "toughen them up"! (and, in some circles, still do, I think... any thoughts from British listmembers?).  The idea was to stiffen their upper lip, teach them how to take it/"suck it up" (!) without any betraying hint of weakness or emotion.

By British aristocracy standards, Lucius' parenting would be considered quite acceptable, I'd wager.  Sure, Draco doesn't like his father's criticism (intended to motivate him, I'm sure), but the feeling of class superiority is meant to compensate.  Don't be so common, Draco.

Dicentra:
> It's possible that Dumbledore was not fooled in the least by the
fake MoM message, instead understanding that Quirrell was making his
move. He "leaves" Hogwarts, but he probably doesn't go far. (He tells
Harry that he makes it as far as London, but I wonder...)<

Oh, he well could have... is he a wizard or not?  He could have taken a broomstick, of course, but why would he when he could Floo or leave the grounds and Apparate?

Sarah:
> Just wanted to mention that I recently read that Argus in Greek 
Mythology not only had 100 eyes, but was set to guard Io, after her 
lover Zeus *turned her into a cow (!)* to save her from Hera's wrath. <

See?  See?  Canono-mythological support for FLIRTIAC!!  (well, we know JKR is borrowing themes from mythology, and that Argus is once such borrowing, so I'd call that support-ish).  Mr Norris as Zeus... I like it.

Cindy:
> Let's say Filch is a squib and Mrs. Norris has been hexed.  Filch works for one of the 
most powerful wizards ever - Albus Dumbledore.  So why doesn't he 
just ask Dumbledore to put it right?

Because Dumbledore, like Wormtail, realised that the safest way to conceal Mrs Norris from the wrath of her dastardly Death-Eater husband was to leave her in animal form.  Filch wept, he pleaded, he implored, but Dumbledore was having none of it.  Better a life as a cat concealed in Hogwarts than a death at the hands of V's followers.  Take good care of her, Argus.  Note that Dumbledore treats Filch's anguish when he things Mrs Norris is dead with gentleness and respect, far more so than he accords poor Snape in *his* hour of torment in PoA...

Watching Mrs Norris' behaviour, a secondary theory that occurs to me is that she was another of Dumbledore's spies or even Aurors.  She certainly spies for Filch.  Maybe she infiltrated the Death Eaters and succeeded in AKing Wilkes seconds before he Apparated to the Potters' to kill Harry, only to be hit by a cat-curse by Rosier just before Moody arrived to AK him.  Moody tried to reverse the curse, of course, but it proved beyond his expertise, so he took her to Dumbledore.  Dumbledore could have fixed her, of course, but decided that V's price on her head was too high to risk it, and instead gave her sanctuary in Hogwarts as a cat, to work in tandem with her Squib lover, Argus Filch...

Eloise (to Cindy):
>Well, there are at least two of us huddling together for warmth in the Bagman 
is a DE camp<

(Tabouli, still in her swirling black robes, sneaks back on board LOLLIPOPS and goes straight to her cabin, where she extracts a tent, some hiking boots and a fuzzy flannel shirt, on which she pins a badge that says:
"L.A.S.S.I.T.U.D.E." (Ludo, Amiably Stupid Sportsman, Is The Undercover Death Eater!), and flashes D.E.V.I.L.!  (Death Eater, Verily, Is Ludo) in fiery red letters if you press it)

Actually, I've had a plot reserved on the DEVIL campsite since I read GoF, I just don't get to visit it much, what with my LOLLIPOPS captaining duties, maintaining the FLIRTIAC dinghy, and my casual job as Evil Overlady.  Here, have some badges to keep you warm...

Tabouli (lighting the campfire and breaking out the marshmallows)


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




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 19 01:51:36 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 01:51:36 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore: All-Seeing, Really Smart, or just Lovable Coot?
Message-ID: <a4sb38+pjml@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35431

I have a question concerning Albus Dumbledore. He seems at times all-
powerful, the ONLY wizard Voldemort fears. In SSt he knows 
immediately when Harry moved from the cubboard. (His second letter 
was addressed to "The smallest bedroom, 4 Privet Drive".

Considering he partnered with Nicholas Flamel in creating the 
sorcerer's syone, Dumbledore's probably at the top of the field. 
would guess he might have sort sort of magic mirror to search for 
evildoers or just keep watch at Hogwarts. 

At times he seems to know everything, yet missed Voldemort hiding in 
Querill, Tom Riddle hiding in Ginny, Pettigrew hiding as Scabbers, 
and Crouch hiding as Moody.

So how omniscient is Albus? Does he have some sort of magic mirror or 
crystal ball that shows him all when he looks?

Opinions?

Uncmark




From david_p at istop.com  Tue Feb 19 03:21:59 2002
From: david_p at istop.com (david_p2002ca)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 03:21:59 -0000
Subject: Release Date for OOP: Speculation
In-Reply-To: <3C717414.7040300@swbell.net>
Message-ID: <a4sgcn+hj4p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35432

I think the release date can be summarized in three words:

When it's ready.

David P.





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Feb 19 03:30:47 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 03:30:47 -0000
Subject: Snape as Vampire
In-Reply-To: <a4s7g4+ap84@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4sgt7+a70h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35433

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" 
<prefectmarcus at y...> wrote:
> I doubt he is.  Why?
> 
> * He is mean and nasty enough.  Why cheapen it by doing 
such a cliche?

I don't follow the argument here. He's not enough like a "real" 
vampire to be one, and yet if he is, it's a cliche?

> * He is mean and nasty.  If he did have such a secret, wouldn't 
he  try to keep a low profile?

He's a Slytherin, so he's not known for making nice. A Slytherin 
who behaved like Lupin would draw attention, not one who acts 
like Snape. 

> * He is mean and nasty.  Everybody "knows" he wants the 
DADA job.   Since he doesn't shirk from making enemies, surely 
some student  sometime would pull a "Hermione" and add up 
the clues.  

They, like us, may be stymied by what "everybody knows" about 
vampire lore. It is quite possible that what everybody knows is 
erroneous, particularly about creatures who are feared and 
hated and out of the ordinary.  People used to believe that Jews 
had horns and tails, for example. And drank blood for that matter.  

> * He is mean and nasty.  He has been personally horrible to 
> Hermione.  Why would she cover for him?

She's still sticking  up for Snape in chapter 27 of GoF, after the 
tooth bashing and the Rita Skeeter reading. Yet she's quite 
happy to avenge herself on Rita. I'd say she's guessed 
something we haven't  about our Severus<g>

> * He is mean and nasty.  Why wouldn't someone in the know 
be offend once too often and pull a "Snape" and "let slip" he was 
a vampire?
> * The MoM has to be aware of what he is.  Would you want your 
child studying at Hogwarts if you knew one of the teaches was a 
vampire?

All of this applies equally to Snape being a Death Eater. 
Somehow Dumbledore has managed to keep that quiet. 

> * If Lupin knew, then Black knows.  Why didn't Sirius bring it up 
> when he was warning Harry in GOF?

Sirius trusts a werewolf, he knows Dumbledore trusts Snape. 
He dislikes Snape personally, but nevertheless he believes that 
it is our choices, not our abilities, which make us what we are. 
As a responsible Godfather, he's trying to pass these principles 
on. He's not very happy about having to shake Snape's hand. But 
he does it.


> * If Lupin gave the vampire essay in retaliation for Snape's 
werewolf  essay, he certainly took his time doing it.  Snape 
assigned his essay  before Halloween.  Lupin assigned his the 
following spring, at least  three months later.

When he could work it into the curriculum, so it wouldn't look like 
a direct retaliation. Lupin is subtle.

> * If Snape had his secret, I would think he would have been a 
bit more sympathetic to Lupin, another person with a secret.  
Why would  he "let slip" the werewolf story if Lupin could so 
easily retaliate?

Snape has his DE past to hide too, but that didn't stop him from 
letting Lupin's secret out. (Hiring Moody, who knew all about 
Severus' past was probably Dumbledore's notion of making the 
punishment fit the crime. ) And as I said, nobody would believe a 
werewolf. 
 
> * Why did not Fudge bring up the fact that Dumbledore 
employed vampires when he brought up werewolves and 
half-giants in GOF-36? 

Why should Fudge know? He doesn't even seem to have known 
that Snape was a Death Eater before seeing the mark.

Pippin





From andrew_macian at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 19 03:41:02 2002
From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 19:41:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Release Date for OOP: Speculation
In-Reply-To: <a4s4e2+7b90@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020219034102.15523.qmail@web9503.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35434

Greetings from Andrew!

Publisher, publisher, who's got the contract?

--- serenadust <jmmears at prodigy.net> wrote:
{snip} of Penney's points in re OotP press date

> In addition to all of Penney's points above, I'd
> like to add that 
> sometime in the last month or so there was a press
> item indicating 
> that JKR had not agreed to formally sign with
> Scholastic to publish 
> book 5. I don't have the exact article at hand but
> I'm sure I read 
> it in the Leaky Cauldron.  The gist of it was that
> Scholastic was 
> quite concerned about continuing their relationship
> with Rowling and 
> finally had to ask if they could "assume" that they
> would be 
> publishing book 5.  They were told (not very
> reassuringly) that for 
> the time being they could continue to assume this,
> but I've not 
> heard anything to indicate that an agreement was
> reached.  It seems 
> to me that the contract between JKR and Scholastic
> would have to be 
> ironed out before any speculation on when book 5
> will appear can be 
> considered valid.

Interesting and potentially a major problem for US
fen.  If we look at how things work for other authors
in SF/F, the US pub rights are either a subsidiary
rights sale, or are negotiated as a separate sale. 
This, of course, depends on the author/agent and first
rights contract.  Also, it is far from unusual to see
a US edition follow an UK edition by some number of
years...not months.  We've been spoiled!

I presume from the context above that Rowling (or her
agent) had a contact with Scholastic for the first US
rights for only the four books that are currently out.
 If this is the case, I think AmazonUK is going to be
flooded with (ahem) foreign currency payments.  Also,
I trust that,no matter who winds up with the US
rights, the text of the novel isn't stupified for US
consumption.

Cheers,

Drieux

=====
ICQ # 76184391

'Each game of chess means there's one less
      Variation left to be played;
 Each day got through means one or two less
      Mistakes remain to be made.'
      --'Chess' by Sir Tim Rice

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com



From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Tue Feb 19 03:06:43 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 03:06:43 -0000
Subject: Peter Gets The Girl, Lucius, Memory Charm, Edge, Variations on FLIRTIAC, SHIP
In-Reply-To: <a4r4vu+59jc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4sfg3+mou4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35435

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> > But there's no reason that you can't have your Reverse Memory
Charm 
> > scenario taking place in '82 or '83, rather than in '81.
> > 
> > Is there?
> 
> Oh, yes, there most certainly is!  ... Why would anyone put a
Memory Charm on a toddler 
> who won't remember anything anyway, particularly if it damages the 
> tyke's memory, we heckle?  
> 
> That is why I have to guard my flanks against Memory Charm Age 
> Creep.  (Calculating Neville's age)
> ...Neville no more than 2 years, 2 months, assuming the worst case
that 
> Neville was born on January 1, 1980 and the attacks are February
1982.
> 
> But look what happens if we push back the attack on the Longbottoms 
> into 1983.  Suddenly, Neville is over 3 years old.  ... People come 
>streaming out of the woodwork to tell 
> me all of the horrors visited upon them when they were 3, ... how
could 
> I be so heartless to deny the poor boy a Memory Charm . . . 

Pardon me for darkening the discussion a bit, here.  It would be 
enough to cause some soft-hearted wizard to give Neville an
obliviate if he *saw* his parents tortured.  But does canon say
that's all that happened? Remember, LV tried to *kill* little Harry!
Would the DE's have any more regard for another child?  I think I 
saw that they Crucio'd Mrs. Longbottom to crack Mr. Longbotttom.
These folks are kinda creepy. If they would Crucio Mrs. Longbottom
would they not also Crucio little Neville, still trying to crack his
father?

In that case, yes, Neville needs a memory charm and, yes, this ties
Harry to Neville in a special way.

Tex, 
hoping all the longbottoms finally get well.





From brewpub44 at earthlink.net  Tue Feb 19 03:51:16 2002
From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 03:51:16 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore (Was:Could the Stone have been Not Destroyed?)
In-Reply-To: <a4rgk9+77i7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4si3k+q0qo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35436

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" <bonnie at n...> 
wrote:
> Dumbledore not only knew Harry would go after the stone, he set the
> whole thing up so that Harry *could*. This is why, I believe:

Hi, I like your list, but would like to make a couple of comments if 
you don't mind.

> 
> 1. It cannot be a coincidence that Harry was with Hagrid when he
> recovered the stone. Dumbledore sent Hagrid to collect Harry and get
> the stone at the same time.

Let's assume that it is a coincidence. Perhaps DD doesn't think Harry 
will be too interested, Harry will be too overwhelmed with what is 
going on that he won't pay attention.

> 
> 2. It is also no coincidence that the stone was retrieved the day
> Quirrell broke into Gringotts. Dumbledore must have known what had
> happened to Quirrell in Albania and what Voldemort was up to. He
> brought the stone to Hogwarts to protect it, yes, but he also knew
> Voldemort would follow it. Perfect opportunity to let Harry 
confront him.

First, there's nothing in PS that I see to elude that DD expected 
Quirrell. And let's look at the coincidence in the other direction: 
DD knows the stone was stolen the same day as Hagrid's retrieval. So 
it is very likely the thief witnessed Hagrid somewhere in the 
vicinity. Then the theft occurs but ... no stone. Any wizard paying 
attention to current (or not-so-current) events knows Hagrid is DD's 
right-hand man; AND that DD is Nicolas Flamel's friend. Put two and 
two together, and ... the Stone is at Hogwarts. Now Dumbledore knows 
that the thief suspects it is at Hogwarts, so he beefs up security.

He uses all the professors to make various traps and such, hoping 
that no one has all the skills necessary to defeat every trap. But, 
after Harry and his friends start to show talent and initiative, he 
has a bright idea. He knows how Lily protected Harry. So, yes, he 
puts Harry into play as a further security measure. 

I'm not sure exactly when he starts to do that, I suspect it's after 
the incident with the troll. I believe DD has been watching Harry 
very closely, and knows the kids are already on the trail. But the 
troll incident makes him believe the trio are also quite competent 
and capable of defending themselves. So at this point he decides to 
give Harry his invisibility cloak. If you notice, they aren't really 
anywhere towards solving much of anything until this moment. They've 
encounted Fluffy, true, totally by accident (although as I write this 
I consider it possible that someone tricked the moving staircase into 
dumping them on the forbidden floor).

Anyway, he puts Harry on the trail. Now the rest of your list makes 
perfect sense, and I wouldn't adjust it a bit.

A Barkeep in Diagon Alley

> 
> 3. As has been mentioned, the Mirror of Erised was the only real
> protection the stone had. Quirrell and Voldemort would have no 
problem
> getting through the other kinds of "protection" surrounding the 
stone
> (though it did slow them down some). The mirror was kind of a monkey
> trap--you can't pull your hand out until you let go of the fruit--
that
> Voldemort could never foil.
> 
> 4. Dumbledore gave Harry the Cloak of Invisibility for Christmas,
> telling him to "use it wisely." What could that mean except "go
> roaming about the school after hours to figure out this mystery"? 
> 
> 5. It's therefore no coincidence that Harry found the Mirror of
> Erised. After Dumbledore tells Harry how the mirror works, he says
> "The Mirror will be moved to a new home tomorrow, Harry, and I ask 
you
> not to go looking for it again. If you ever do run across it, you 
will
> now be prepared." At the time, Harry probably thought the last
> sentence meant that he wouldn't waste away in front of it, but I 
think
> he was referring to the confrontation with Voldemort. (And, by the
> way, the stone was probably in the mirror the whole time (even 
before
> Christmas?), "unprotected" by the other spells.)
> 
> 6. Some have suggested, with reason, that the tests required the
> cooperation of all three to pass and were deliberately set up this
> way. The only test that didn't have this quality was the troll, 
which
> Dumbledore knew would have been defeated by Quirrell before Harry 
met
> up with it.
> 
> 7. That the test was ultimately meant for Harry alone is shown in
> Snape's potions test. Only one person can make it through to the
> mirror. Dumbledore counted on that one person being Harry. (If no 
one
> was meant to get to the stone, ALL the vials would contain poison.)
> 
> 8. Dumbledore was counting on Harry to figure out where the stone 
was
> and who was after it. When Harry asks him later about the fate of
> Nicolas Flamel, he brightens up: "Oh, you know about Nicolas?" said
> Dumbledore, sounding quite delighted. "You *did* do the thing
> properly, didn't you?" The "thing" was the mystery Dumbledore had 
set
> up for Harry.
> 
> 9. It's possible that Dumbledore was not fooled in the least by the
> fake MoM message, instead understanding that Quirrell was making his
> move. He "leaves" Hogwarts, but he probably doesn't go far. (He 
tells
> Harry that he makes it as far as London, but I wonder...) As 
Hermione
> later recounts "we were dashing up to the owlery to contact 
Dumbledore
> when we met him in the entrance hall--he already knew--he just said,
> 'Harry's gone after him, hasn't he?' and hurtled off to the third 
floor."
> 
> 10. Ron then asks, "D'you think he meant you to do it? Sending you
> your father's cloak and everything?" Harry responds (after 
Hermione's
> obligatory horrified reaction), "I think he sort of wanted to give 
me
> a chance. I think he knows more or less everything that goes on 
here,
> you know. I reckon he had a pretty good idea we were going to try, 
and
> instead of stopping us, he just taught us enough to help. I don't
> think it was an accident he let me find out how the mirror worked.
> It's almost like he thought I had the right to face Voldemort if I
> could...." I don't think this is Harry?s personal interpretation. I
> think this is JKR's message to the reader.
> 
> I wondered what would possess Dumbledore to not only allow, but to
> arrange for, a first-year student to confront Voldemort (weak, yes,
> but Quirrell wasn't). He must have known that Quirrell wouldn't be
> able to touch Harry because the spell that protected him against AK 
in
> the first place was still working. But as he says, "I feared I might
> be too late.... For one terrible moment there, I was afraid [the
> effort to keep Quirrell off you had killed you]." Ah well, I guess
> that there is no reward without risk. But what a risk!
> 
> --Dicentra, who's always glad to enlighten the masses :)




From andrew_macian at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 19 04:15:41 2002
From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:15:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore (Was:Could the Stone have been Not Destroyed?)
In-Reply-To: <a4rgk9+77i7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020219041541.50257.qmail@web9502.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35437

Greetings from Andrew!

William of Ockahm, please report for immediate jump
duty!

(I really wonder why I answered this, but since the
time is already spent, here 'tis.  Enjoy!)

--- dicentra_spectabilis_alba
<bonnie at niche-associates.com> wrote:
{snip} of some previous commentary in re HP being
permitted/encouraged to do dangerous things...this in
an effort to 'prove' Prof D is, perhaps,  'evil'.

> Dumbledore not only knew Harry would go after the
> stone, he set the
> whole thing up so that Harry *could*. This is why, I
> believe:
> 

Could != permit; neither does it, IMO/E, imply that
Prof D 'knew' that Harry would go after the Stone.

However, let's progress.

> 1. It cannot be a coincidence that Harry was with
> Hagrid when he
> recovered the stone. Dumbledore sent Hagrid to
> collect Harry and get
> the stone at the same time.

Really?  It *can not*?  I beg to differ in that,
whilst Hagrid was dispatched to do both
simultaneously, the actions were potentially in
parallel.  There is at least some chance that Harry
would not either be with Hagrid every nanosecond that
both were in the Gringotts, or would be able to make
out what it was that Hagrid removed from the vault. 
Unless, if course, one imputes precise precognitive
powers to Prof D.  In my view, he's *good*, but not
that good.

> 2. It is also no coincidence that the stone was
> retrieved the day
> Quirrell broke into Gringotts.

Concur, but this is, of course, seen in retrospect.

> Dumbledore must have
> known what had
> happened to Quirrell in Albania and what Voldemort
> was up to.

I have a hard time with this.  What's Prof D's
logic/motivation for letting the (figurative)
anti-christ set up shop on his campus?

> He
> brought the stone to Hogwarts to protect it, yes,
> but he also knew
> Voldemort would follow it. Perfect opportunity to
> let Harry confront him.

{sigh}  Same question:  Why would Prof D *do* this?

> 
> 3. As has been mentioned, the Mirror of Erised was
> the only real
> protection the stone had. Quirrell and Voldemort
> would have no problem
> getting through the other kinds of "protection"
> surrounding the stone
> (though it did slow them down some). The mirror was
> kind of a monkey
> trap--you can't pull your hand out until you let go
> of the fruit--that
> Voldemort could never foil.

Concur, but only because of the actual *condition*
Prof D placed on it: If you wan it *to use*, you
cannot have it.

 
> 4. Dumbledore gave Harry the Cloak of Invisibility
> for Christmas,
> telling him to "use it wisely." What could that mean
> except "go
> roaming about the school after hours to figure out
> this mystery"? 

Oh, I dunno...how about simple self-defense, just for
a start?  And for a *much* simpler reason?

> 
> 5. It's therefore no coincidence that Harry found
> the Mirror of
> Erised.

Erm.  Excluded middle, I think.

> After Dumbledore tells Harry how the mirror
> works, he says
> "The Mirror will be moved to a new home tomorrow,
> Harry, and I ask you
> not to go looking for it again. If you ever do run
> across it, you will
> now be prepared." At the time, Harry probably
> thought the last
> sentence meant that he wouldn't waste away in front
> of it, but I think
> he was referring to the confrontation with
> Voldemort.

Possibly, but again I don't see the same motive(s) in
Prof D's actions that you do.

> (And, by the
> way, the stone was probably in the mirror the whole
> time (even before
> Christmas?), "unprotected" by the other spells.)

{shrug}  Unknown.  Unprovable.

> 
> 6. Some have suggested, with reason, that the tests
> required the
> cooperation of all three to pass and were
> deliberately set up this
> way. The only test that didn't have this quality was
> the troll, which
> Dumbledore knew would have been defeated by Quirrell
> before Harry met
> up with it.

Too tenuous, but let's go forward....

> 
> 7. That the test was ultimately meant for Harry
> alone is shown in
> Snape's potions test. Only one person can make it
> through to the
> mirror. Dumbledore counted on that one person being
> Harry. (If no one
> was meant to get to the stone, ALL the vials would
> contain poison.)

Well..not to me.  It was patent that it was meant for
ONE person, but not one *given* person.  Again, you
multiply entities without reason, IMO.

> 
> 8. Dumbledore was counting on Harry to figure out
> where the stone was
> and who was after it.

Again...WHY HARRY?  What's Prof D's motive in pitting
a 13 year old child against the most powerful Dark
wizard in the world?

> When Harry asks him later
> about the fate of
> Nicolas Flamel, he brightens up: "Oh, you know about
> Nicolas?" said
> Dumbledore, sounding quite delighted. "You *did* do
> the thing
> properly, didn't you?" The "thing" was the mystery
> Dumbledore had set
> up for Harry.

Again.,..this is after the fact, and appears to be a
post hoc fallacy.

> 
> 9. It's possible that Dumbledore was not fooled in
> the least by the
> fake MoM message, instead understanding that
> Quirrell was making his
> move. He "leaves" Hogwarts, but he probably doesn't
> go far. (He tells
> Harry that he makes it as far as London, but I
> wonder...) As Hermione
> later recounts "we were dashing up to the owlery to
> contact Dumbledore
> when we met him in the entrance hall--he already
> knew--he just said,
> 'Harry's gone after him, hasn't he?' and hurtled off
> to the third floor."

Nothing like a blinding flash of insight *after* the
pieces fall into place, yes?

> 
> 10. Ron then asks, "D'you think he meant you to do
> it? Sending you
> your father's cloak and everything?" Harry responds
> (after Hermione's
> obligatory horrified reaction), "I think he sort of
> wanted to give me
> a chance. I think he knows more or less everything
> that goes on here,
> you know. I reckon he had a pretty good idea we were
> going to try, and
> instead of stopping us, he just taught us enough to
> help. I don't
> think it was an accident he let me find out how the
> mirror worked.
> It's almost like he thought I had the right to face
> Voldemort if I
> could...." I don't think this is Harry?s personal
> interpretation. I
> think this is JKR's message to the reader.
> 
> I wondered what would possess Dumbledore to not only
> allow, but to
> arrange for, a first-year student to confront
> Voldemort (weak, yes,
> but Quirrell wasn't). He must have known that
> Quirrell wouldn't be
> able to touch Harry because the spell that protected
> him against AK in
> the first place was still working. But as he says,
> "I feared I might
> be too late.... For one terrible moment there, I was
> afraid [the
> effort to keep Quirrell off you had killed you]." Ah
> well, I guess
> that there is no reward without risk. But what a
> risk!

Whilst I agree with you in the effect/outcome, I
really  wonder why Prof D would gamble so heavily on
so many unknowns having to come out *exactly* right.

In the end, Harry prevails-- and a good thing it is,
too!-- but I still find unproven the notion that (1)
Prof D did all of this deliberately and thus (2) Prof
D is somehow 'evil' for having so allowed it to occur.

> 
> --Dicentra, who's always glad to enlighten the
> masses :)

Cheers,

Drieux


=====
ICQ # 76184391

'Each game of chess means there's one less
      Variation left to be played;
 Each day got through means one or two less
      Mistakes remain to be made.'
      --'Chess' by Sir Tim Rice

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com



From brewpub44 at earthlink.net  Tue Feb 19 04:22:06 2002
From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 04:22:06 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore: All-Seeing, Really Smart, or just Lovable Coot?
In-Reply-To: <a4sb38+pjml@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4sjte+bu6v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35438

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" <uncmark at y...> wrote:
> I have a question concerning Albus Dumbledore. He seems at times 
all-
> powerful, the ONLY wizard Voldemort fears. 
> 
> At times he seems to know everything, yet missed Voldemort hiding 
in 
> Querill, Tom Riddle hiding in Ginny, Pettigrew hiding as Scabbers, 
> and Crouch hiding as Moody.
> 
> So how omniscient is Albus? Does he have some sort of magic mirror 
or 
> crystal ball that shows him all when he looks?
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> Uncmark

I don't think he is omniscient at all, and don't buy the crystal ball 
thing, either.

I think JKR respects knowledge and research above all. Her book is 
full of themes about how ability is above ancestry, choice is above 
fate or prophecy, how talent is good but knowledge is better, how 
knowledge can only be gained through study, and how nothing 
worthwhile is easy. I don't see how a crystal ball fits into her 
idiom, so I doubt such a thing exists.

What I do believe exists is that Dumbledore is very talented, 
capable, and smart. He figures things out. He studies all the time, 
would be my guess, being that rare adult who continues to try to 
learn as he gets older. Note many references to "ancient magics" that 
he knows -- because he wants to know.

So he uses his noodle to figure out that LV is after the Stone, and 
also to figure out how Harry was protected by Lily (thus Harry is a 
*secret weapon*). But he can't pick out Quirrell simply because he 
doesn't spot the clues and can't omnisciently scry for what happened 
in Albania.

He gets stumped by the Chamber of Secrets, because it's not really 
well documented where it is, but he knows Harry can speak 
Parseltongue, suspects that has something to do with it (being a 
creation of Salazar Slytherin), so has Fawkes watch out for Harry and 
rescue him if needed. 

He has no idea about Pettigrew, not being particularly interested in 
rats (who would be?). I can't fault him for that, that is a sort of 
out-of-the-blue plot development. Everyone is worried about Sirius, 
and DD is mad as hell about the dementors, so Pettigrew comes on as a 
bit of a shock.

As far as Crouch-Moody, I guess that's his biggest failure IMHO. He's 
known Moody for years, but perhaps he too thinks Moody's off his 
rocker, so he doesn't pay as much attention as he should. Don't we 
all have a tendency to brush off the loony uncle we all seem to have?

Anyway, I am not a fan of prophecies or crystal balls. I prefer hard, 
deductive reasoning, and I think that is all Dumbledore has ever 
shown us.

A Barkeep in Diagon Alley




From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com  Tue Feb 19 04:28:21 2002
From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 22:28:21 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Release Date for OOP: Speculation
References: <a4s4e2+7b90@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C71D465.3C01D1A4@kingwoodcable.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35439

serenadust wrote:

> In addition to all of Penney's points above, I'd like to add that
> sometime in the last month or so there was a press item indicating
> that JKR had not agreed to formally sign with Scholastic to publish
> book 5. I don't have the exact article at hand but I'm sure I read
> it in the Leaky Cauldron.  The gist of it was that Scholastic was
> quite concerned about continuing their relationship with Rowling and
> finally had to ask if they could "assume" that they would be
> publishing book 5.  They were told (not very reassuringly) that for
> the time being they could continue to assume this, but I've not
> heard anything to indicate that an agreement was reached.  It seems
> to me that the contract between JKR and Scholastic would have to be
> ironed out before any speculation on when book 5 will appear can be
> considered valid.
> 

I think it's likely that Scholastic will publish it. Christopher Little
did tell them they could assume they are will be the American
Publishers. Even if they don't publish it, they get the first bid for
the book, before Rowling can look at other publishers.

-Katze



From catlady at wicca.net  Tue Feb 19 05:02:39 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 05:02:39 -0000
Subject: S'mores (some-mores) / Draco and Lucius / Peter's Wand
Message-ID: <a4sm9f+obe2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35440

Eloise wrote:

> And what are Smores anyway? Can I try one, please?

Take two Graham Crackers. Put a Hershey bar (plain, not almond) on 
one, cover it with marshmallows that have been burnt on a stick held 
over a campfire, put the other Graham Cracker to make a sandwich. 
Yum!

Unc Mark wrote:

> Draco has two accomplices in bullying, but I wouldn't call there 
> him and C&G friends on the level of HRH. Could you see any of them 
> facing death for Draco? Could you even see them letting Draco stun 
> them continuously for practice? Example of their 'friendship' ChofS 
> Ch. 12: Draco to Harry (polyjuiced as Goyle) "Honestly, if you were
> any slower, you'd be going backward."

Crabbe and Goyle might be willing to die for Draco, and to submit to 
endlessly Stunning for practice, out of a kind of dog-like loyalty, 
even if Draco is not a very good master (still less a friend). 
Furthermore, Draco might be a pretty good master, fond of them in a 
patronizing way, and helping them out with brains the way they help 
him out with brawn. Maybe doing their homework for them, drilling 
them in enough rote memorization that they can pass their exams with 
the lowest possible mark simply by regurgitating the memorized facts, 
telling them what excuse to use when they get in trouble for 
something...

> As for Harry and Ron? Example of their 'friendship' ChofS Ch. 16: 
> Harry to Ron when they discover the hidden entrance to the Chamber 
> in Moaning Myrtle's bathroom: "I'm going down there," he (Harry) 
> said. He couldn't not go, not now they found the entrance to the 
> Chamber, not if there was the faintest, slimmest, wildest chance 
> that Ginny might be alive. "Me too." said Ron.

Well, Ginny IS Ron's sister. It wouldn't speak very well for Ron if 
he was less concerned about his own sister than Harry is about a girl 
he hardly knows.

Jenny from Ravenclaw wrote:

> I can't understand why so many people speculate that Draco may be
> abused physically. Where is the evidence of that? Lucius is 
> disappointed in his son's performance in his classes; very parental
> and caring, IMO. Lucius and Narcissa are also very giving - Draco 
> gets the best brooms to fly with and lots of sweets from home.

1) If the way we heard Lucius snark at Draco about grades seems 
'parental and caring' to you, then I'm very glad I'm not your child. 
(God, *how* I always hated my parents telling me that I'm no good!)   

2) There is no contradiction between giving a child a lot of material 
things and physically beating the same child. Some physically abusive 
parents give their children gifts as bribes not to tell, or in an 
attempt to make up for the physical abuse committed in fits of lost 
temper, not that I think Lucius would stoop to either of those: his 
level of self-confidence is such that he wouldn't feel he had 
anything to make up for and he couldn't imagine that Draco would be 
so disrespectful and sissy as to go whining to Children's Protective 
Services about him.

3) I read the nagging about grades, the gift of first-rate
broomsticks, and several other gifts, as a parent who believes that 
he has the right to own a prize child, a child who is the best at 
everything (Quidditch, grades, attractive appearance, etc) and will 
be admired by all the other parents, and takes out his resentment at 
having been stuck with a less-than-perfect child on the child. 

4) As for evidence of Draco having been abused: it seems to me that 
Draco is pretty sensitive/observant in terms of noticing what other 
people are touchy about, so he can insult them on those points that 
hurt the most. It is said that very often abused children grow up 
very perceptive about people, because they spent their early lives 
watching their parents for every little clue about when the parent is 
dangerous, so the child can avoid the parent at those times.  

Gwen/Lee wrote:

> ... fanfic, right? So I think it's time to trot out my Lucius 
backstory,

<sniffle> No one ever cares about MY Lucius backstory! Yours is very 
cool, but MINE has Lucius inheriting so young via murdering his father 
and much older brother...

All the people who suggest that Peter dropped his wand (along with 
his finger) before fleeing as a rat, and the Law Enforcement picked 
it up as Sirius's, so if they PI'd what they thought was Sirius's 
wand, it would show the dozen-killing curse as the latest spell cast
.... are you taking into consideration that wands look different? 
They're different woods and different lengths, even if they don't 
have the individual & unique decorative carving that I imagine they 
have. It doesn't take Ollivander to tell an Oak, thirteen inches, 
from a Mahogany, eight inches. DMLE had Dumbledore give some kind 
of presumably-sworn statement (he said 'I myself testified', but 
according to GoF there wasn't a trial) that Sirius had been the 
Potters' Secret-Keeper, but they didn't have any witness identify the 
wand?




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 19 04:07:14 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 04:07:14 -0000
Subject: Canon evidence for Snape being a vampire
In-Reply-To: <a4onka+eq3t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4sj1i+9a0m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35441

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> GoF -35
> "Snape followed [Dumbledore], looking into the Foe-Glass 
> where his own face was still visible, staring into the room."
> 
> Snape enters the room behind Dumbledore, McGonagall goes 
> straight to Harry, but Dumbledore kicks the stunned 
> Crouch/Moody over onto his back. Snape is right behind him, 
> presumably as back up, but his attention is drawn to the 
> Foe-Glass, obviously not an ordinary mirror. Snape's fascinated 
> by it because ---he's never seen his reflection before?
> 
> Pippin
> who thinks that JKR is being very mysterious about vampires. If 
> not Snape, what is she hiding?

I was struck by the same thing-- he's far more interested in the foe-
glass than a person should be in that situation.  Why?  Has it been a 
long time since he saw himself?  

And as for the vampire essay that Lupin assigned his class: I've 
always wondered why Snape let Lupin take away the Maurader's Map 
after Snape has caught Harry with it.  He's already figured out that 
it may be directions into Hogsmeade:

"'A letter perhaps, written in invisible ink?  Or-- instructions to 
get into Hogsmeade without passing the dementors?'  Harry blinked.  
Snape's eyes gleamed."

When Snape calls in Lupin, Lupin does lie through his teeth and say 
it is just something from a joke shop.  But, do you REALLY think 
Snape believed him?

"Snape pointed at the parchment, on which the words of Messrs. Moony, 
Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs were still shining.  An odd closed 
expression appeared on Lupin's face.  'Well?' said Snape.  Lupin 
continued to stare at the map.  Harry had the impression that Lupin 
was doing some very quick thinking."

If Harry can spot the strange look on Lupin's face, so can Severus. 
I'm sure he believed Lupin was lying. So, why did Snape let Lupin 
pocket the map and walk out with it? Perhaps because of the very next 
thing Lupin said.

"He folded the map and tucked it inside his robes. 'Harry, Ron, come 
with me, I need a word about my vampire essay-- excuse us, Severus--'"

We'll never know how Snape reacted to that statement, because, "Harry 
didn't dare look back at Snape as they left his office."

Hmmm-- Severus, you get more interesting every day.






From elfundeb at aol.com  Tue Feb 19 04:34:05 2002
From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 04:34:05 -0000
Subject: Snape & Draco psychology,  DEVIL
In-Reply-To: <003f01c1b8e4$3cf49240$8e53dccb@price>
Message-ID: <a4skjt+v9k3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35442

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> wrote:

> 
> I said on Draco:
> > But he's worse than that:  the death wishes for 
> Hermione that he expresses periodically, as you point out, go way 
> beyond mere adolescent bullying and veer sharply in the direction 
of 
> the sociopathic child who if left unchecked may take Daddy's 
arsenal 
> to school one day for a murder-suicide rampage (though, in another 
> glimmer of hope, he never threatens to carry out the threats 
himself).<

Tabouli: 
> 
> Mmmmmnahhhh.  From all the profiles of people who suddenly go on a 
sociopathic killing rampage I've ever read and heard about, it almost 
always seems to be the "quiet" ones, the oppressed ones, the ones who 
were victimised and degraded by their peers for years, and finally 
Snape, er, I mean, snap.  Their motivation is to gun down the hand 
that hit them.
> 
> Draco doesn't fit this profile at all.  He's hardly oppressed, for 
a start (wizard blood counting for less everywhere hardly cuts the 
mustard), he's the spoilt rich son of someone highly respected in the 
community, and has two close friends (oafish tho' they be) and, it 
seems, a girlfriend or at least an admirer.  He's far from a greasy 
loser who's victimised by his peers... he seems to be almost the 
Slytherin ringleader!  IMO, his run-ins with the Trio and Twins are 
the fights of children on the opposite sides of a war (whose parents, 
moreover, are high-ranking warriors), not signs of sociopathic 
tendencies.

Well, the sociopath was a bit of a stretch, perhaps, which is why I 
attempted to qualify it by saying "in the direction of."  (I see that 
my dictionary suggests that sociopaths hate all people whereas Draco 
hates only Mudbloods, Muggle-lovers, etc.)  I certainly don't 
disagree that the younger generation is following in the warring 
footsteps of their parents.  But the DEs carried 
out killing rampages, the only difference being that they were 
targeted at Muggles (Arthur Weasley told us at the World Cup that 
half the Muggle killings in the old days were for fun.)  Seen in that 
light, every death threat Draco makes absolutely frightens me; I'd 
have to classify that as "sick."  And that sickness is a DE specialty.

And while Draco does not quite fit the sociopath profile, he's not on 
the opposite side of the fence either.  For example, though not 
victimized generally by his peers, certainly Draco sees Hermione as a 
threat, and it may be significant that Draco did not throw his first 
Mudblood taunt at her until second year, after she had beat him 
academically and Draco was called to task for it by his father.  And 
IMO, though the Malfoys' money buys them a veneer, their respect has 
worn thin.  The lack of respect accorded purebloods is 
increasingly threatening to them. It's partly a numbers game, as the 
percentage of halfbloods in the wizarding population continues to 
increase.  Moreover, I'm not sure Crabbe and Goyle qualify as friends 
rather than paid bodyguards ("you stand by me and I'll get you 
through this school" -- ok, that's rampant speculation, but since the 
elder C&G have been revealed as DEs it doesn't seem extreme for young 
C&G to have been told to stick with Draco and they'd get through).  

> 
> > 
> Eloise (to Cindy):
> >Well, there are at least two of us huddling together for warmth in 
the Bagman 
> is a DE camp<
> 
> (Tabouli, still in her swirling black robes, sneaks back on board 
LOLLIPOPS and goes straight to her cabin, where she extracts a tent, 
some hiking boots and a fuzzy flannel shirt, on which she pins a 
badge that says:
> "L.A.S.S.I.T.U.D.E." (Ludo, Amiably Stupid Sportsman, Is The 
Undercover Death Eater!), and flashes D.E.V.I.L.!  (Death Eater, 
Verily, Is Ludo) in fiery red letters if you press it)
> 
> Actually, I've had a plot reserved on the DEVIL campsite since I 
read GoF, I just don't get to visit it much, what with my LOLLIPOPS 
captaining duties, maintaining the FLIRTIAC dinghy, and my casual job 
as Evil Overlady.  Here, have some badges to keep you warm...
> 
Please send me a L.A.S.S.I.T.U.D.E./D.E.V.I.L. badge!  Silence on 
these debates did not necessarily mean dispproval.  Owl post is fine.

Debbie (also expressing complete agreement with Tabouli's comments on 
Snape which were deleted for space reasons; you've hit on why I like 
him: it's for what he does when no one else is watching)

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




From DMCourt11 at cs.com  Tue Feb 19 04:43:15 2002
From: DMCourt11 at cs.com (bookraptor11)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 04:43:15 -0000
Subject: Mrs. Norris (third theory for Tabouli)
In-Reply-To: <003f01c1b8e4$3cf49240$8e53dccb@price>
Message-ID: <a4sl53+p1ae@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35443

> Cindy:
> > Let's say Filch is a squib and Mrs. Norris has been hexed.  Filch 
works for one of the 
> most powerful wizards ever - Albus Dumbledore.  So why doesn't he 
> just ask Dumbledore to put it right?
>Tabouli replies: 
> Because Dumbledore, like Wormtail, realised that the safest way to 
conceal Mrs Norris from the wrath of her dastardly Death-Eater 
husband was to leave her in animal form.  Filch wept, he pleaded, he 
implored, but Dumbledore was having none of it.  Better a life as a 
cat concealed in Hogwarts than a death at the hands of V's 
followers.  Take good care of her, Argus.  Note that Dumbledore 
treats Filch's anguish when he things Mrs Norris is dead with 
gentleness and respect, far more so than he accords poor Snape in 
*his* hour of torment in PoA...
> 
> Watching Mrs Norris' behaviour, a secondary theory that occurs to 
me is that she was another of Dumbledore's spies or even Aurors.  She 
certainly spies for Filch.  Maybe she infiltrated the Death Eaters 
and succeeded in AKing Wilkes seconds before he Apparated to the 
Potters' to kill Harry, only to be hit by a cat-curse by Rosier just 
before Moody arrived to AK him.  Moody tried to reverse the curse, of 
course, but it proved beyond his expertise, so he took her to 
Dumbledore.  Dumbledore could have fixed her, of course, but decided 
that V's price on her head was too high to risk it, and instead gave 
her sanctuary in Hogwarts as a cat, to work in tandem with her Squib 
lover, Argus Filch...

While reading your theories, a third theory occured to me. Mrs. 
Norris knows how much being a squib pains Filch, and in an effort to 
give him a quick fix peruses many a forbidden volume, either at 
Hogwarts or elsewhere.  I remember Ron telling Harry to be careful 
when looking through magic books.  There was one that you couldn't 
stop reading for the rest of your life and another that had the 
reader talking in rhyme, also without cure.  Perhaps Mrs. Norris 
wasn't careful, was turned into a cat, and the book's spell is even 
beyond Dumbledore's ability to fix. At least at Hogwarts they're 
still together, and hopefully Dumbledore (or somebody)is working on 
it!

Donna





From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 19 06:00:14 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:00:14 +0000
Subject: Mrs. Norris and the Map
Message-ID: <F61tQvAauNjVuMhvqgS000001b6@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35444

I know that it's not an original theory, but one that has made sense to me 
is that the MM only provides names based on people known to the viewer. That 
would explain many things: why HRH never saw "Peter Pettigrew" anywhere on 
the map, why they always see Mrs. Norris as "Mrs. Norris" no matter what her 
real name might be, or her real form.

Does that make any sense?

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





From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 19 08:34:28 2002
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:34:28 -0000
Subject: Release Date for OOP: Speculation
In-Reply-To: <20020219034102.15523.qmail@web9503.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a4t2mk+f1o9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35445

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Andrew MacIan <andrew_macian at y...> wrote:
> Greetings from Andrew!
> 
> Publisher, publisher, who's got the contract?
> 
> --- serenadust <jmmears at p...> wrote:
> {snip} of Penney's points in re OotP press date
> 
> > In addition to all of Penney's points above, I'd
> > like to add that 
> > sometime in the last month or so there was a press
> > item indicating 
> > that JKR had not agreed to formally sign with
> > Scholastic to publish 
> > book 5.

> I presume from the context above that Rowling (or her
> agent) had a contact with Scholastic for the first US
> rights for only the four books that are currently out.
>  If this is the case, I think AmazonUK is going to be
> flooded with (ahem) foreign currency payments.  

I attended a book signing by Terry Pratchett in Chicago last May, and someone in the crowd asked him a question very 
much to that effect.  Pratchett's books were notorious for arriving in the States years after being published in the UK, 
but the book the signing was in honor of was being released simultaneously on both sides of the Atlantic.  After being 
asked if this meant he was finally entered mainstream American pop culture, Pratchett answered that the reason was 
simply that his publishers had finally realized that delaying US publication puts money directly in Amazon's pocket.  
Pratchett is a bestselling writer in the UK, but there's just no way he's outselling Rowling in the States.  Under no 
circumstances would OotP not be released simultaneously in the UK and the US, if for no other reason that if 
Scholastic are stupid enough to lose the contract, *any* other US publisher would welcome Rowling with open arms.

Myself, I hope she sticks with Scholastic.  As I understand it, landing the HP contract when no other US publisher would 
touch it has kept the company solvent and allowed them to continue their research in school textbooks.  Also, I don't 
believe we'll be seeing any changes in OotP a-la SS/PS (and for heaven's sake, dumbing down?  All that happened was 
that some slang words that American kids wouldn't recognize were changed - and that is the target audience, you 
know - kids) those changes were made because Rowling was in no place to make demands, and in her own words was 
just happy to have found a US publisher.  The situation is very different now.  As I said, any publishing house would fall 
over backwards to have her and make very few demands.

Abigail






From nicholson_el at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 19 02:34:19 2002
From: nicholson_el at hotmail.com (sothoii)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 02:34:19 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore: All-Seeing, Really Smart, or just Lovable Coot?
In-Reply-To: <a4sb38+pjml@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4sdjb+ohlp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35446

uncmark <uncmark at y...> wrote:
> I have a question concerning Albus Dumbledore. He seems at times 
all-
> powerful, the ONLY wizard Voldemort fears. In SSt he knows 
> immediately when Harry moved from the cubboard. (His second letter 
> was addressed to "The smallest bedroom, 4 Privet Drive".

More likely Dumbledore suspected that there would be problems getting 
the message to Harry and kept a close watch on him to see what would 
happen when the letters arrived.  Hagrid even says that "Dumbledore 
told me there might be trouble gettin' hold of [Harry]" When he and 
Harry meet in the hut on the rock.

> Considering he partnered with Nicholas Flamel in creating the 
> sorcerer's syone, Dumbledore's probably at the top of the field. 
> would guess he might have sort sort of magic mirror to search for 
> evildoers or just keep watch at Hogwarts. 
> 
> At times he seems to know everything, yet missed Voldemort hiding in 
> Querill, Tom Riddle hiding in Ginny, Pettigrew hiding as Scabbers, 
> and Crouch hiding as Moody.
> 
> So how omniscient is Albus? Does he have some sort of magic mirror 
or 
> crystal ball that shows him all when he looks?

With regards to the other issues, it is not necessary to be omniscient 
to be talented.  Obviously, Dumbledore is talented magically, and 
seems to posess a great deal of knowledge.  However, he can not watch 
over everyone all the time.  He is capable of making educated guesses, 
just as anyone else is, his are based on a wider range of knowledge 
than most peoples.

With regards to the Voldemort-Quirrell, I have no idea how much 
Dumbledore suspected, however he did know that Voldemort was after the 
Philosophers Stone.

He does know that an early version of Voldemort was opening the 
Chamber of Secrets, because he asks Harry "how Lord Voldemort managed 
to enchant Ginny?".  He is suprised by the use of the diary to contain 
an early version of Tom Riddle.

As for the Pettegrew-Scabbers and Crouch-Moody I doubt that he 
suspected until there was some reason to.  Sirius told Dumbledore 
about turning into animagi, which Dumbledore does not know.  He does 
suspect Moody as an imposter after Moody takes Harry away after the 
tri-wizard tournament, and that it has something to do with Crouch as 
he asks Snape to get Winky from the kitchens before Crouch's potion 
wears off.

I believe that Dumbledore's knowledge comes from a long time (150 
years!) of observing people, fighting dark magic, and being central to 
many events that have shaped the magical world, not being omnipotent. 
 He uses the pensive to sort through the many memories to attempt to 
apply them to the current situation.  While there are magical aids, 
such as foe glasses, Dumbledore has never been observed using any of 
them.

Sothoii





From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 19 08:49:46 2002
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:49:46 -0000
Subject: Mrs. Norris and the Map
In-Reply-To: <F61tQvAauNjVuMhvqgS000001b6@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a4t3ja+1td6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35447

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jake Storm" <that1guy_hp at h...> wrote:
> I know that it's not an original theory, but one that has made sense to me 
> is that the MM only provides names based on people known to the viewer. That 
> would explain many things: why HRH never saw "Peter Pettigrew" anywhere on 
> the map, why they always see Mrs. Norris as "Mrs. Norris" no matter what her 
> real name might be, or her real form.
> 
> Does that make any sense?

I'm afraid not, because if that were true than Harry wouldn't have seen Crouch Jr.  on the map while he was disguised 
as Moody and searching Snape's office.  If I recall correctly, Harry doesn't even find out about Crouch Jr.'s existence 
until much later, when he goes to see Sirius in his cave.

Abigail






From shanerichmond at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 19 11:18:41 2002
From: shanerichmond at hotmail.com (roleplayer_m_uk)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:18:41 -0000
Subject: Release Date for OOP: Speculation
In-Reply-To: <a4t2mk+f1o9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4tcah+g117@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35448

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "abigailnus" <abigailnus at y...> wrote:
(and for heaven's sake, dumbing down?  All that happened was 
> that some slang words that American kids wouldn't recognize were 
changed - and that is the target audience, you 
> know - kids)

Some slang words that American kids wouldn't recognise? 
Like "philosopher", you mean?




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 19 11:33:21 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:33:21 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore: All-Seeing, Really Smart, or just Lovable Coot?
In-Reply-To: <a4sdjb+ohlp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4td61+rch8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35449

I originally posted a question on Dumbledore's omniscence:
> I have a question concerning Albus Dumbledore. He seems at times 
> all-powerful, the ONLY wizard Voldemort fears. In SSt he knows 
> immediately when Harry moved from the cubboard. (His second letter 
> was addressed to "The smallest bedroom, 4 Privet Drive".

"sothoii" <nicholson_el at h... replied
> More likely Dumbledore suspected that there would be problems 
> getting the message to Harry and kept a close watch on him to see 
> what would happen when the letters arrived.  Hagrid even says 
> that "Dumbledore told me there might be trouble gettin' hold of 
>[Harry]" When he and Harry meet in the hut on the rock.

So Dumbledore uses divinationation magic. I'm curious on the extent 
of his abilities. There are ctystal balls in the Potterverse and 
keeping with the 'mythology tilt' I've read in several posts, Zeus 
(or it might have been Odin)could see the entire Earth from his 
throne, but he had to sit on the throne to do it.

I posted:
> At times he seems to know everything, yet missed Voldemort hiding 
> in Querill, Tom Riddle hiding in Ginny, Pettigrew hiding as 
> Scabbers, and Crouch hiding as Moody. So how omniscient is Albus? 

"sothoii" <nicholson_el at h... replied
> With regards to the other issues, it is not necessary to be 
> omniscient to be talented.  Obviously, Dumbledore is talented 
> magically, and  seems to posess a great deal of knowledge.  
> However, he can not watch over everyone all the time.  He is 
> capable of making educated guesses, just as anyone else is, his are 
> based on a wider range of knowledge than most peoples.

I feel Dumbledore's divination is probably tops, but he would have to 
know where to look and other Wizards could probably partially block 
divination, Sort of the wizard equivalant of lead-shielding against X-
ray vision.

> With regards to the Voldemort-Quirrell, I have no idea how much 
> Dumbledore suspected, however he did know that Voldemort was after 
> the Philosophers Stone.

D. talked of knowing LV had been hiding in Albania and suspected an 
attack was coming, but LV could probably block a divination spell or 
maybe even send back a 'false reading'.

> He does know that an early version of Voldemort was opening the 
> Chamber of Secrets, because he asks Harry "how Lord Voldemort 
> managed to enchant Ginny?".  He is suprised by the use of the diary 
> to contain an early version of Tom Riddle.

My take on the Chamber of secrets was that Albus was the 
Transfiguration teacher when the Chamber was opened. He was probably 
ignored when he insisted Hagrid was not the culprit, and may have not 
had proof at the time that it was Riddle.

The Chamber probably has a divination shield of the highest strength, 
(cast by Slytherin) making it unplotable by magic maps and unreadable 
by spells. 

Fifty Years later, as one of the few that knew Riddle was Voldemort 
Dumbledore knew WHO opened the Chamber, but not HOW or WHERE it was. 
I suspect that he knew Harry was the key, however, and probably 
watched him close.

There was mention of 'ancient magic' protecting Harry on Privit Drive 
in GofF. Mrs. Figg, Harry's childhood babysiiter, may have been the 
same Arabella Figg that Dumbledore called 'one of the old crowd'. 
(This  has been reported online in several places) I believe 
Dumbledore had Harry under constant watch so he would have known that 
Harry spoke Parseltongue as soon as the snake escaped!

> As for the Pettegrew-Scabbers and Crouch-Moody I doubt that he 
> suspected until there was some reason to. 

Do you believe he was completely fooled that there were 3 
unregistered animaguses at Hogwarts? I think he may have known, but 
was fooled as much as everyone that Sirius killed Peter. In PofA he 
believed that the Fidelius charm used Sirius. If he had thought 
Pettigrew dead, he would not have looked for him. 

 No wonder he uses the Pensieve to siphon off extra thoughts.

"sothoii" <nicholson_el at h... replied
> I believe that Dumbledore's knowledge comes from a long time (150 
> years!) of observing people, fighting dark magic, and being central 
> to many events that have shaped the magical world, not being 
> omnipotent. 

Here's a wizard with well over a century of experience and secrets to 
remember. With 1000 students to occupy his time he can't watch 
EVERYTHING! I'm guessing he has several magical wards up at critical 
locations that would alert him immediately. If a wizard tried to 
apperate in Hogwart's OR someone tried to enter his office perhaps. I 
don't buy for a minute that he was unaware that HRH discovered Fluffy 
and the trapdoor in SSt or that he just 'left ajar' the cabinet of 
the Pensieve in GofF.

"sothoii" <nicholson_el at h... posted:
>  He uses the pensive to sort through the many memories to attempt 
> to apply them to the current situation.  While there are magical 
> aids, such as foe glasses, Dumbledore has never been observed using 
> any of them.


Dumbledore's no fool! Remember that each book covers an entire school 
year, but mostly from Harry's POV. If there is a magic method to do 
his job better, Dumbledore probably uses it, time permitting. I 
wouldn;t be surprised if in a critival battle he used a time turner 
to be at two paces at once! Still, Dumbledore is not intrusive and 
does not spy on his students. I'm guessing that with running the 
school, advising Fudge on the MoM, he had LITTLE time to gaze into 
magic mirrors but that he would in a pinch. Remember this is the 
wizard that subscribed to the muggle newspaper of Little Hangleton, 
keeping up on news around the Riddle Home.

Uncmark




From lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 19 11:53:26 2002
From: lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com (Ms Lizard Gizzard)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 03:53:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Mrs. Norris and the Map (Animals and Crowds)
In-Reply-To: <F61tQvAauNjVuMhvqgS000001b6@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20020219115326.97903.qmail@web13505.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35450

I don't think he ever saw any animal in any form on
the map. Yes - the animagi, but they're not really
animals, are they?  There are never owls, or mice or
hippogriffs on the map, only humans.  The map would be
too cluttered otherwise.

Now, that is an argument against the "Mrs. Norris is
human" theory, as well as the 1000 students at
Hogwarts theory.  If there were so many people then
the map would be cluttered to the point of
uselessness.  Surely, there cannot be more than a few
hundred students and faculty at the school.

--- Jake Storm <that1guy_hp at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I know that it's not an original theory, but one
> that has made sense to me 
> is that the MM only provides names based on people
> known to the viewer. That 
> would explain many things: why HRH never saw "Peter
> Pettigrew" anywhere on 
> the map, why they always see Mrs. Norris as "Mrs.
> Norris" no matter what her 
> real name might be, or her real form.
> 
> Does that make any sense?
> 
>
_________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print
> your photos: 
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com



From m.j.kroll at worldnet.att.net  Tue Feb 19 11:12:08 2002
From: m.j.kroll at worldnet.att.net (lennyb2002)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:12:08 -0000
Subject: Neville's Skill or Narrator's Style?
Message-ID: <a4tbu8+1vuv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35451

Hello, I am fairly new to this world, so I don't mean to step on any 
toes if this has been discussed before. So, Neville often seems to 
disappear and reappear in a different place. Let's use exhaustion--GF-
-Harry, Herm, Ron, and Neville get off the boat. They enter Hogwart's 
and are attacked by Peeve's. From this point on, Neville is not 
mentioned again until he seems to creep up out of nowhere and step 
into the hole in the stairs where he is described as being right 
behind Harry, Ron, Hermi and the twins as they retire to the dorm.(He 
also talks about Gran and the family honor)---GF--In DADA class, 
Neville mentions the Cruciatus Curse. He again falls out of the 
picture until the trio walk out of class and Hermionne surprisingly 
points out a confused Neville who is standing in a corridor facing a 
brick wall. Also, Moody takes Neville to talk about things, and Harry 
goes to lunch. Harry returns to his room to find Neville comfortable 
on his bed and proud with his new book. PA---Ron screams when he 
awakes to Sirius standing over him with a knife. In the description 
of what follows, everyone in Harry's room is mentioned by name--
except of course, Neville. But Dean, Seamus, Ron and Harry all speak 
or act. "They" scramble out of bed and "they" sprint downstairs 
but "they" are not defined as including Neville. Neville of course is 
not mentioned until he raises his hand, squeaks, and has on those 
fluffy slippers. Why wasn't there any mention of Neville in the 
moments after Sirius left? Wouldn't you check if Neville's okay or 
tell him to nevermind the bunny slippers and move his tail? Or in 
Moody's class, (I DONT HAVE GF ON ME!) How did he get in front of the 
class if he didn't run out or leave early? How does he beat Harry 
back to the room during lunch and how did he avoid the hole in the 
stairs getting there? Why did Harry awake from his dream with 
something that felt like he was "smacked in the face", why did Ron 
even wake up, and why does N have his slippers on the night Sirius 
was in the room? Why did his Uncle drop him out the window?? Why do 
Dumbledore and Fawkes seem to show up in weird places (Desire mirror 
room and the chamber)? Oh, I shall stop right now. If you have read 
this, you are tired and deserve some sort of cash compensation.     

lennyb2002







From Edblanning at aol.com  Tue Feb 19 12:13:34 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 07:13:34 EST
Subject: Peter's wand and the Evil Fudge ( was; S'mores (some-mores) / Draco and Lucius 
Message-ID: <130.99dd79b.29a39b6e@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35452

Catlady writes:

> All the people who suggest that Peter dropped his wand (along with 
> his finger) before fleeing as a rat, and the Law Enforcement picked 
> it up as Sirius's, so if they PI'd what they thought was Sirius's 
> wand, it would show the dozen-killing curse as the latest spell cast
> .... are you taking into consideration that wands look different? 
> They're different woods and different lengths, even if they don't 
> have the individual & unique decorative carving that I imagine they 
> have. It doesn't take Ollivander to tell an Oak, thirteen inches, 
> from a Mahogany, eight inches. DMLE had Dumbledore give some kind 
> of presumably-sworn statement (he said 'I myself testified', but 
> according to GoF there wasn't a trial) that Sirius had been the 
> Potters' Secret-Keeper, but they didn't have any witness identify the 
> wand?

*All* the people? Oh good, are there others out there who hold the same 
theory? Where are you? It's lonely here at Camp 
Cornelius-Fudge-is-Ever-so-Evil. (Twinned with Camp 
Ludo-Bagman-is-Ever-so-Evil). 

Yes, of course I've taken into account the facts that wands look different. 
But as we have both pointed out, *there wasn't a trial*. So the circumstances 
under which Dumbledore 'testified' are murky, to say the least. I imagine it 
was kind of , 'Just need you to come down to the Ministry to make a statement 
to the effect that Black was the Potter's Secret Keeper, then we've got this 
thing all wrapped up.'
Yes, Ollivander could have identified the wand. That was a potential problem. 
But not nearly so much of a problem as Pettigrew disappearing with the guilty 
wand and the only one at the scene being one that could not possibly have 
committed the crime.
And your objection stands even if my Evil Fudge theory is wrong. They get 
Dumbledore to make a statement, but *they do not check the ownership OR the 
guilt of the wand at the scene of the crime.*
In fact the ownership is not so much of a problem. All they needed was that 
Sirius was apparently in posession of the guilty wand, whether it was his or 
not. Just makes the crime worse, doesn't it, blasting poor little Peter to 
smithereens *with his own wand*.
I think we have to remember the atmosphere of the time. This was war. A man 
was standing there, apparently admitting that he had committed the most 
heinous of crimes. No-one, not even the fair-minded Dumbledore seems to have 
objected to imprisonment without trial. The niceties didn't matter. We had an 
admission, we had a weapon. That was enough. 
It also seems strange, doesn't it, that in all those years in Azkaban, Sirius 
never appealed, never said, 'Look, I can prove I didn't do it, jus PI my 
wand.' No, he knew they had it all wrapped up. Ollivander could testify that 
the guilty wand was Pettigrew's, but it was only Sirius' word that he wasn't 
using it.

And I still can't think of a better way to explain the missing wands, can you?

Eloise, more committed to her theory than ever, plants her deer-stalker on 
her head, throws her cape round her shoulders, draws on her pipe, splutters 
uncontrollably as she's not used to smoking and stalks out into the fog in 
pursuit of more evidence.

'How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, 
whatever remains, *however improbable*, must be the truth?
                                                 Sherlock Holmes

PS  thanks for telling me about the S'mores, I don't wish to seem ungracious!


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




From Edblanning at aol.com  Tue Feb 19 12:28:27 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 07:28:27 EST
Subject: Who is Florence? what is she, That all our swains commend her?
Message-ID: <87.17c77fb0.29a39eeb@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35453

(Eloise bursts into  Shakespearean song)

Yet again trailing in last, in the wake of a thread that's probably finished. 
But what the heck, I need to do this for me, so I may as well share it.
I thought I'd just go back through a few posts, for the benefit of those who 
like myself are beginning to be hopelessly tied up in the Devil's Snare that 
is the tangle of Florence's love life. Please forgive me ( and correct me) if 
I misrepresent anyone. I'm just trying to get this straight.

Elkins:
Florence is Sirius' girlfriend. Forbidden love and all that. He hexes Bertha. 
Eventually caves in to his friends and gives Florence up.
Florence goes all moody- resentful. Goes to Snape to get revenge tuition. 
Snape has a crush on her anyway and Sirius comes to think there's something 
going on between them.
Florence ends up going bad in a big, big way, marries Lestrange etc.
Both Sirius and Snape blame each other for Florence's descent into Darkness, 
triggering the Prank, mutual hatred etc etc.
Neatly summed up by Marina as
Florence, Loved and Abandoned by Black, Becomes EnRaged, Goes After 
Severus, Turns Evil Deatheater = F.L.A.B.B.E.R.G.A.S.T.E.D.

Now, Cindy makes the plot a bit juicier
Bertha *does* catch Sirius with Florence, but the reason he's so enraged is 
that he's been caught two-timing Lily, who hasn't yet started going out with 
James. AND, Florence is Snape's girlfriend.
Yep. That's reason for a hex alright. (and thanks for the admission that 
Snape isn't totally repulsive!) Ah...*that*s the romantic trapezoid.
Bertha tells Snape about Florence; Snape tells Lily about Sirius. End of 
Sirius/Lily. Sirius now hates Snape more than ever, leading to Prank etc.
Snape still carries a torch for Florence, but she's after Lestrange who's 
more malliable. He joins DEs in the hope of getting her back.

Now enter Captain Tabouli, with some very well thought out objections on the 
grounds of character to the above (which I won't attempt to summarise!)
But, we have a new theory!
Florence was kissing Crouch junior ( a bit of cradle-snatching here!), Crouch 
rebelling in the face of his father's treatment of him ( nothing he did was 
ever good enough) and Florence getting her revenge for his imprisoning of her 
DE parents. So young Florence seduces both Crouch Jr and Lestrange into 
Darkness.

Tabouli then has another theory, hot on the tail of the last.
Florence is not Florence Lestrange, but Florence Norris, and it's Filch who's 
caught kissing her.

The trouble is, we just don't know who old Flo is. I think the case for her 
being Mrs Lestrange is quite strong - but then the same reasoning leads us to 
Mrs Norris. I rather like the idea of Mrs Lestrange having such a prim and 
proper name, though.

Sirius is certainly the kind to hex first and think later: the romantic 
trapezoid definitely has merits.

But methinks there are any number af variants we could play on this theme.
Perhaps she was Snape's girlfriend and Bertha caught her with Lestrange. 
Or alternatively she was already involved with Lestrange and Bertha caught 
her with Snape. Although I don't think Snape would hex her. I agree with 
others that physical violence isn't his style. Actually, I think he doesn't 
*need* to stoop to physical violence, the threat is enough.

I do like the idea of some kind of entanglement between Snape and Mrs 
Lestrange though, even if it was all in Snape's mind. We could then work 
Cindy's ambushes and my conviction that Snape sacrificed something personal 
to convince Dumbledore of his loyalty into the same theory.

Elkins comments on Dumbledore's comment re the Penseive memory of Bertha,

>"But why, Bertha, . . . why did you have to follow him in the first 
>place?"

>The anguished tone seems rather out of keeping for a simple matter of 
>a fast hex, doesn't it?  No, Dumbledore's agony there arises from his
>wise suspicion that this entire Sirius Black affair is going to prove 
>the last straw for the unstable young Florence, that it will be the 
>catalyst which will push her right over the edge into Darkness.>

I think the anguish is for Bertha. Why on earth does she have to be such a 
nosy cow, sticking her oar in (can cows have oars?), telling tales and 
getting herself into trouble over matters which are none of her business. 
Exactly what she's done again and look at the trouble she's caused this time.

Whilst I think that that Bertha is the prime subject of this little Penseive 
scene, I agree that mentioning Florence's name is significant. She may well 
be Mrs Lestrange, but equally, she may be someone we haven't yet met. After 
all, Arabella Figg was introduced at the beginning of PS/SS and we still 
haven't met her. Perhaps Florence is the new DADA teacher. ( Snape's 
long-lost love returns? Is this the end of those nocturnal ramblings?)

Eloise, finding this discussion of someone who may as yet not even have had 
*one* word even more amazing than the Avery one.

Who is Silvia? what is she,        
That all our swains commend her?
Holy, fair, and wise is she;        
The heaven such grace did lend her,
That she might admir?d be. 

Is she kind as she is fair?       
For beauty lives with kindness.
Love doth to her eyes repair,        
To help him of his blindness,
And, being helped, inhabits there. 

Then to Silvia let us sing,        
That Silvia is excelling;
She excels each mortal thing        
Upon the dull earth dwelling:
To her let us garlands bring.   

Not to Mrs Lestrange, though!






























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




From fiatincantatum at attbi.com  Tue Feb 19 13:43:22 2002
From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:43:22 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore (Was:Could the Stone have been Not Destroyed?)
In-Reply-To: <20020219041541.50257.qmail@web9502.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <a4rgk9+77i7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C72102A.1468.39C31E@localhost>

No: HPFGUIDX 35454

On 18 Feb 2002 at 20:15, Andrew MacIan wrote:

> > 8. Dumbledore was counting on Harry to figure out
> > where the stone was
> > and who was after it.
> 
> Again...WHY HARRY?  What's Prof D's motive in pitting
> a 13 year old child against the most powerful Dark
> wizard in the world?

Perhaps the child is the *only one* that has the ability to face down 
Voldemort?  Yes, Voldemort fears Dumbledore, but Harry's the only one who ever 
set him back any distance.  Maybe there is no one else to be sent.


  
-- 
Fiat Incantatum 
fiatincantatum at attbi.com

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




From meboriqua at aol.com  Tue Feb 19 13:52:48 2002
From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 13:52:48 -0000
Subject: Draco and Lucius 
In-Reply-To: <a4sm9f+obe2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4tlbg+efn2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35455

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" <catlady at w...> 
 
> 1) If the way we heard Lucius snark at Draco about grades seems 
> 'parental and caring' to you, then I'm very glad I'm not your child. 
> (God, *how* I always hated my parents telling me that I'm no good!)   
> 
> 2) There is no contradiction between giving a child a lot of 
material things and physically beating the same child. Some physically 
abusive parents give their children gifts as bribes not to tell, or in 
an attempt to make up for the physical abuse committed in fits of lost 
temper, not that I think Lucius would stoop to either of those: his  
level of self-confidence is such that he wouldn't feel he had anything 
to make up for and he couldn't imagine that Draco would be so 
disrespectful and sissy as to go whining to Children's Protective 
Services about him.
> 
> 3) I read the nagging about grades, the gift of first-rate
> broomsticks, and several other gifts, as a parent who believes that 
> he has the right to own a prize child, a child who is the best at 
> everything (Quidditch, grades, attractive appearance, etc) and will 
> be admired by all the other parents, and takes out his resentment at 
> having been stuck with a less-than-perfect child on the child. 
> 
> 4) As for evidence of Draco having been abused: it seems to me that 
> Draco is pretty sensitive/observant in terms of noticing what other 
> people are touchy about, so he can insult them on those points that 
> hurt the most. It is said that very often abused children grow up 
> very perceptive about people, because they spent their early lives 
> watching their parents for every little clue about when the parent 
is dangerous, so the child can avoid the parent at those times.>

Sorry to snip so much here.  These are good reasons to support why 
Draco may be abused by his parents, but I still don't buy it.  I don't 
recall Lucius telling his son that he is "no good"; Lucius was simply 
disappointed that his son did not reach his potential as the 
intelligent boy Lucius believes his son to be (of course, I haven't 
looked at that scene for quite a while, so feel free to quote from it 
and say "see, dummy Jenny!).  I wish my parents had put *more* 
pressure on me to do better in school.  As an adult, I don't think my 
parents encouraged me enough.  That scene shows me that Lucius has 
high expectations of his some because he thinks highly of his son.

For me, the bottom line in Draco's behavior comes from being overly 
spoiled, not physically abused.  I am not saying this is a good thing, 
or that Lucius and Narcissa are the models for the way parents should 
be, but I believe that they have raised him to be a bully without 
using their hands, belts, brushes, or cords.  Lucius is known for 
bullying others around him: to make decisions about Dumbledore in CoS 
and about Buckbeak in PoA and this is what Draco sees at home.  Draco 
knows how to spot weaknesses in others because he was raised to do so.  
Lucius clearly thinks that those with money are superior and we all 
know what the Malfoys think of Muggles.  It doesn't take physical 
punishment for these things to stick in a child's mind.

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




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Feb 19 13:58:44 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 13:58:44 -0000
Subject: Snape & Draco psychology, Mr Norris as Zeus, DEVIL
In-Reply-To: <003f01c1b8e4$3cf49240$8e53dccb@price>
Message-ID: <a4tlmk+lfjc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35456

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> wrote:

> Brings up something I've always mused on... how about our ol' fave
Severus?  What's his driving ambition these days?  Does he really want
recognition, or it is revenge he really wants?  I'm always a bit
sceptical about the notion that Snape's driving ambition is to win an
Order of Merlin and the adulation of the people.  If he really wants
adulation, why does he go out of his way to make himself disliked? <

I think what Snape really wants is to be *vindicated*.  He wants to
say "I told you so" to the world, and to have the world reply, "Why,
yes, Severus, you've been right all along, we're really sorry we
didn't listen."  That's what his actions in PoA were all about.  He
didn't want the Order of Merlin for the glory, he wanted it as
tangible public proof that *his* judgement of Sirius Black has always
been the correct one, going back to the days of the Prank, when Snape
said, "Hey, this guy is a murderer," and the world said, "Don't be
silly, he was just fooling around, can't you take a joke?"  And when
he loses it after Sirius' escape, it's not just because he missed out
on his vindication, but also because somewhere in the back of his
mind, I suspect a small voice was already whispering about the
possibility that he might've actually been wrong.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From mjollner at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 19 14:44:12 2002
From: mjollner at yahoo.com (mjollner)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 14:44:12 -0000
Subject: Differences between US & UK editions
Message-ID: <a4tobs+egtt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35457

Curious about the much ballyhooed differences between the US and UK 
editions of the HP books, I recently ordered a set of four UK edition 
paperbacks.  I've had a bit of time now to peruse them, and what 
surprises me is not the textual differences (more on that later), but 
rather the artwork.

In the abstract, I prefer Mary GrandPre's illustrations on the US 
books to those that decorate the UK editions.  I do like her little 
pen & ink drawings that decorate the first page of every chapter. 

However, her warm-n-fuzzy pastel cover illustrations seem a little 
too...how shall one say..."upbeat," perhaps? for the darker tone the 
series is now taking.  In particular, after reading the US GoF, I was 
struck by how misleadingly cheerful the picture of Harry on the front 
is, waving his wand over the Goblet of Fire, whereas in the book, 
Harry doesn't smile much, and with good reason.  I then looked at the 
US PoA book again, and sure enough, the cover seems inappropriately 
happy, with a smiling Harry and Hermione (whom I thought at first was 
Ginny, since on my copy at least, her hair looks red) riding Buckbeak. 
 
Compare these to the cover of UK PoA, with a terrified Hermione 
clutching a determined, serious Harry taking Buckbeak to rescue 
Sirius.  Not to mention the cover of UK GoF and that awesome rendering 
of the dragon.  I got a very different, darker impression of the book 
just from looking at that picture.

The difference between the illustrations for the various editions were 
what really got my attention.  I found the textual differences to be 
mostly superficial, although I did notice a few corrections in my UK 
GoF paperback - the Priori Incantatem order was fixed, as was 
something Dumbledore says to Sirius and Snape after they shake hands 
in the hospital, "...unless the few of us who know the truth stand 
united, there is no hope for any of us."  In my US hardcover edition, 
it reads, "...unless the few of us who know the truth do not stand 
united..."  Quite a different meaning!

Others have mentioned recently ordering one set or the other of the 
books to compare differences; anyone else struck by anything unusual?







From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Tue Feb 19 14:52:24 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 14:52:24 -0000
Subject: Mrs. Norris and the Map (Animals and Crowds)
In-Reply-To: <20020219115326.97903.qmail@web13505.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a4tor8+2649@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35458

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ms Lizard Gizzard <lizgiz1980 at y...> wrote:
> Now, that is an argument against the "Mrs. Norris is
> human" theory, as well as the 1000 students at
> Hogwarts theory.  If there were so many people then
> the map would be cluttered to the point of
> uselessness.  Surely, there cannot be more than a few
> hundred students and faculty at the school.

I think JKR is a writer, not a cartographer. We imagine a map of the
entire Hogwarts property on a single piece of parchment.  That need 
not be the case. A'la the fancy binoculars in GF, the map may have
features: at least a zoom capability, and perhaps even a search
feature.  What else would be handy?

Tex, who is going to be late for work If he doesn't shut
down NOW!





From tabouli at unite.com.au  Tue Feb 19 15:04:09 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 02:04:09 +1100
Subject: FILK: On the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS
Message-ID: <000a01c1b956$afcc1c80$d431c2cb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35459

It was inevitable, I suppose.  After the rush of smugness I felt after devising an acronym which both said what I wanted it to say (Love Of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Severus) *and* managed to crowbar in a witty reference to an actual SHIP in a twee Shirley Temple song, I thought I could hold out against writing the accompanying filk.

Once upon a time (in high school) I was a voracious parodier of twee songs, long before I'd ever heard of the term "filk".  However, I *had* decided to abandon such folly for more Serious Art (like writing backstories for HPFGU), thinking that Caius or another regular HPFGU filker would inevitably take up the Lollipop for me on this one. But alas.  As it's now several months since I coined the acronym that launched a thousand ships, I regretfully decided tonight that I could resist temptation no more.

Though I only actually knew the actual lyrics and melody for the first two lines of the chorus of the offending song, the Internet swiftly put paid to any procrastination on that front.  I still have no idea how the melody for the verses and the rest of the chorus goes, as my computer refuses to play the midi file for some reason, but this site:

http://www.digitaltimes.com/kids/lyrics_for_kids/goodshiplollipop.html

was kind enough to scupper my last excuse by providing me with not only the lyrics but an idea of where the stresses in the song fall.  I used it as my guide to scansion (and, to some degree, rhyming and content).

Ladies and gentlemen of HPFGU, I present to you my inaugural filk...

ON THE GOOD SHIP LOLLIPOPS

VERSE 1

Snape was a greasy boy
Cooler boys liked to shame, 
Sirius made a ploy 
To mock him, but who came?

 

Lily, who told Black why
Bullying's always wrong
She was so strong all along
and Snape heard her song.

 

CHORUS

On the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS
Where the dark chip on Snape's shoulder props
Up a world of sighs 
For a lovely girl with emerald eyes.

 

VERSE 2

Severus pined, sadly spurned

Ever maligned, so he turned
To Voldemort
Took his pain out /on the foes he fought.

[/in an evil war (for those who pronounce Voldemort without a T)] 



But his conscience stirred when one day he heard
Of the big bad Dark Lord's new plan
To enlist his help (Ooh!  Ooh!)
To dispatch Lily's son and man! 



CHORUS

On the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS
It's a short trip to the Hogsmeade shops
Where Snape made his way
To ask Dumbledore to let him stay.

 

VERSE 3
Severus spied on the plot,
Voldemort vied, and he got
In a rat who did
All he could to find where they were hid.

 

Snape contained the foe for a year or so
But the big bad Dark Lord came through
He killed James and then (Ooh!  Ooh!)
He then slew lovely Lily too!

 

CHORUS
On the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS
There's a young snip wearing hair that flops
In those emerald eyes
That Snape loves to taunt and demonise!



*****



Captain Tabouli (humming about below deck, and avoiding the eyes of her crew)



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




From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Tue Feb 19 15:42:37 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:42:37 -0000
Subject: Differences between US & UK editions
In-Reply-To: <a4tobs+egtt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4trpd+bh8d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35460

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mjollner" <mjollner at y...> wrote:
> Curious about the much ballyhooed differences between the US and UK 
> editions of the HP books, I recently ordered a set of four UK edition 
> paperbacks.  I've had a bit of time now to peruse them, and what 
> surprises me is not the textual differences (more on that later), but 
> rather the artwork.

The Harry Potter Galleries have assembled a list of the text differences between 
the US and UK editions:

http://www.popogo.com/hol/words/wordgallery1.htm

They also have posted an interview with the Scholastic editor who originally 
decided to make all these changes. I think he's an idiot, and a symbol of all that's 
wrong with American education, and I'm horrified that with his ignorant attitude, 
he was responsible for making significant decisions at the US's largest academic 
publisher.

http://www.popogo.com/hol/words/c117.htm






From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu  Tue Feb 19 15:49:16 2002
From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:49:16 -0000
Subject: Draco and Lucius
In-Reply-To: <003f01c1b8e4$3cf49240$8e53dccb@price>
Message-ID: <a4ts5s+10kl1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35461

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> quoted me:
> > He doesn't connect to his son. He threatens him, he bullies him
> (verbally, *never* physically, IMO--that's part of Draco's problem),
> he rewards him with material goods (inconsistently, btw) and
> apparently indulges Narcissa's tendency to spoil him (sweets, choosing
> Hogwarts over Durmstrang despite his reservations about Dumbledore).
> But...he doesn't show his love in any meaningful way.<

And then said:
"You know, whenever I read people talking about Draco being neglected
and abused, I keep getting a whiff of cultural and era differences at
work.  The modern ideal of parents who hug their children regularly,
tell them they're great all the time, strive to be encouraging and
supportive and complimentary about everything they do, democratic,
explanatory, negotiation based parenting, etc.etc. is a very recent
and, I think, particularly American development."


Tabouli. No. You have completely misconstrued what I was referring to;
I used some shorthand there because I've talked about this at length
before. This is not about culture and not about touchy-feely ickle
woobiekins crap. In fact, if you'll notice, I mentioned that I think
part of Draco's problem is that he is *not* disciplined consistently.
I *hate* that modern psychological, "negotiation-based" as you put it,
parenting bullhockey. I'm not sure how you got to that extreme from my
saying merely that Lucius is not connected in any meaningful way to
Draco. I think Lucius cares about his son, but I don't get the
impression that he *likes* his son--he disdains him. He doesn't know
what to do with Draco.

You continued:
  What gets construed as "abusive" and "authoritarian" these days was
downright normal not long ago, and, I suspect, still *is* to some
degree among the Britich aristocracy.  These are people who sent their
seven year olds to icy boarding schools where they got the cane, ate
ghastly food and had cold showers to "toughen them up"!


Yes. I am wholeheartedly in favour of parenting as a (generally
benevolent) dictatorship. And I'm well aware that the normal thing in
a household like Draco's is for his parents to essentially ignore him
until he's old enough to carry on dinner conversation. That's NOT what
I'm talking about. All I said was Lucius doesn't connect. I'm not
talking about quality time and certainly not positive
reinforcement--or as you put it, telling him he's great--my problem is
that I *don't* think Draco has gotten any attention consistently AT ALL.

The model you put forth is more-or-less how I picture Lucius to have
been raised. Yes, I *do* think Draco had tutors and nannies, yes, I
*do* think he had supervision, but no, I *don't* think that
supervision ever really had his "best interest" at heart. I absolutely
don't think he's ever been spanked, let along caned, in his life. Like
I said, that's his problem--he's allowed too free a rein. I have a
feeling he gets away with murder at home--primarily because Lucius
doesn't want to focus on the "trivial" details of his son's education
and Narcissa defers to the boy too often (IMO). Whether that is out of
affection or convenience is unclear, though I think some of both is
likely. If you want him to stop whinging, buy him off (a bit like a
watered-down Petunia Dursley, in fact), bribe him to stop.

I don't think Lucius gives his son a second thought, most of the time,
except when presented with this creature, who is whingy and demanding
and altogether unimpressive, and nothing like Lucius pictures himself
at that age to have been. He's certainly not living up to Lucius's
expectations of what "His Son" would be like. I think Lucius doesn't
expect Draco to need reinforcement or any type of positive
contact--after all, *he* would never have climbed into his father's
lap at any age, so why should Draco? It's like the plight of the
parent who was a goody-two-shoes in school, presented with a child who
is out of control. The parent has no idea how to proceed, because his
parents never *had* to discipline him. So the kid takes the power in
the relationship. I don't think it's quite that extreme, here, because
Lucius obviously does provide a poor example of a few traits that
Draco has in common, but that's the gist of what I'm saying. I think
Lucius honestly expected that any child of his would automatically
know what it is to be a Malfoy, and behave as one. No guidance required.

I also think Draco has been raised with a weird push-pull going on
between his parents: Lucius wants him "toughened up," as you say, but
with the exception of beatings (and how Draco needs a good
beating)--not because of any sheeshy, mamby-pamby "We don't hit in
this family" bull, but simply because Lucius balks at the idea of
anyone *else* touching Draco, and he can't be bothered to do it
himself. He cuts Draco up verbally, and that can be incredibly
difficult to take, but I get the impression Draco tends to "blow off"
Dad's criticism, especially when in the next breath, Dad's buying
brooms for the whole team. Narcissa, I think, spoils the kid rotten.
Yes, he occasionally gets what he asks for (the broom), but not until
Lucius is good and ready to give it to him--and that giving may well
be Mom's influence, as well. I mean, Narcissa owls the little brat
sweets from home every day.

I think Lucius has failed to be *any* kind of parent, is what I'm
saying. I don't have a problem with farming the kid out to staff whose
job it is to train him up, but I don't think they followed any
consistent plan for that purpose. For one thing, there is a
distinction between life in the nursery and life at the boarding
school. Ordinarily there's a huge gulf--where up until the kids are
old enough to attend school, they are smothered with love--either by
their parents (at certain times of day) or the servants who care for
them. In fact, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Russian and
English children were considered the most "spoiled" in Europe because
their caretakers indulged them. School presents a culture-shock,
sink-or-swim expectation. However, I very much doubt that at any point
in his childhood, Draco could count on unconditional affection from
anyone--including all those nannies and tutors. He's never experienced
it, so going to school is not really all that different--except that
the pater and mater aren't as easily on hand to smooth things over for
him.

Tabouli:
> By British aristocracy standards, Lucius' parenting would be
considered quite acceptable, I'd wager.  Sure, Draco doesn't like his
father's criticism (intended to motivate him, I'm sure), but the
feeling of class superiority is meant to compensate.  Don't be so
common, Draco.

I completely agree, with the exception that I don't think the staff
were given enough leeway. But just because it's acceptable doesn't
mean it's what he needs (one) and two, I still don't think Lucius is
consistent about it or tempers it with the kind of "tough love" Draco
should be getting. Think about the incident in PS/SS where Draco
complains about being given a "practical" detention. Hagrid gets right
back in his face. One gets the impression that this is the first
time--ever--in this kid's life that a "servant" has dared discipline
him. Even in British aristocratic households, the servants had more
power than the children when it came to setting policy. If nothing
else, the invocation of the parents/master & mistress *should* make up
for any overstepping of bounds. When push comes to shove, this kid is
never told "no." He *isn't* told to "suck it up." He *isn't* taught to
control his emotions--I'll buy that Lucius *expects* him to be tough,
but Lucius never sees to it that the boy learns the lesson.

*That's* what I mean when I say he doesn't connect. He's a
soft-pedaled version of Vernon Dursley, attributing Draco's
indiscretions to youth or exuberance or associating with the "wrong"
sort at Hogwarts, but he never takes any steps to correct the
behaviour. He's miles better than Vernon in that he will privately (or
semi-publicly) take Draco down a peg or two, but still. Still. Look at
the circumstances.

I think Lucius was making light of an embarrassing situation in Borgin
and Burkes. The way I read the scene, Draco had just been "common," as
you say, and he had behaved childishly in front of an inferior. Lucius
was being charming to smooth over the indiscretion. The grades comment
was calculated to present a loving, caring picture to the "help," and
meant to be a bit of a joke. But Draco screws up again. He was
supposed to take it on the chin and be penitent and respectful. And
what does he do? He whines. He makes excuses. It leaves Lucius no
choice but to swat Draco back down into place and shut him up quickly.
It doesn't quite make up for losing face in front of Borgin, but it at
least establishes Lucius's control over his own family. In short,
Lucius is motivated by *selfish* reasons to display first a "normal"
father-son relationship, and then his firm parenting style, to someone
who might otherwise get the impression that Lucius is a pushover. It's
not about Draco at all.

No, on the whole, I have a feeling Lucius does not present a
discernible pattern to Draco. The occasional scold, followed by a
sizable material reward, is at best a mixed signal, and at worst could
be taken by Draco as an apology or an admission of some weird form of
guilt. The example of giving a child expensive presents to make up for
prior assaults is a good one here--not, I think, what Lucius intended,
but certainly in that Draco could take it that way. Lucius, IMO, is
not a man who apologizes--to anyone--but it would be consistently
self-centred of Draco to take any gift as a peace offering.

Now, if one were to ask Lucius "Do you love your son?" I think the
answer would be "Of course." If one asked Draco, "Does your father
love you?" I believe he would also say "Of course." Ditto if one asked
either of them whether Draco loves Lucius. Neither sees it as a
problem--but the complexities of such a relationship run deep, and I'd
be hard pressed to tell whether either is quite as sure as he claims
to be of the other's affection. That, too, lays pipe for the
possibility that Draco will come to see Dad is not the best role-model
in the world.

Gwen (who would probably make the toughest, meanest well-meaning
mother in the world, which is another excellent reason not to breed)





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 19 16:05:43 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 16:05:43 -0000
Subject: Snape vs. Neville, Dumbledore, Harry
In-Reply-To: <a4sfg3+mou4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4tt4n+votc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35462

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" <jbryson at r...> wrote:
> Pardon me for darkening the discussion a bit, here.  It would be 
> enough to cause some soft-hearted wizard to give Neville an
> obliviate if he *saw* his parents tortured.  But does canon say
> that's all that happened? Remember, LV tried to *kill* little Harry!
> Would the DE's have any more regard for another child?  I think I 
> saw that they Crucio'd Mrs. Longbottom to crack Mr. Longbotttom.
> These folks are kinda creepy. If they would Crucio Mrs. Longbottom
> would they not also Crucio little Neville, still trying to crack his
> father?

Just another thought - Snape may well have been among the cruciating 
group of DEs which is why Neville is so afraid of him. Heck - what if 
the DEs demanded that Snape puts the crucio curse on Neville - (to 
prove his loyalty or some such) - [i]that[/i] would have been the 
reason for him to leave the DEs. Torturing babies... Poor little 
babies who can't even talk! He will NOT go that far! But he's too 
afraid of Voldemort to refuse.

What Neville remembers when with dementors - is Snape puttin crucio 
on him, someone else putting it on his mother, and one more to curse 
his father - all this with Snape's face in front of his face, 
blocking everything else from his sight... no wonder he's scared of 
Snape. And... Harry had overcome Voldemort *before* this - but Snape 
didn't know it, thus making this terrible act to be in vain!

Snape made a confession to Dumbledore and asked for death, but 
Dumbledore would not accept that. - Because he's wise enough to know 
that living with the guilt is worse than anything else and objects to 
death penalty.

That would explain Dumbledore's trust - the confession. He *knows* 
that Snape will not join people who torture babies. Also, why he will 
NOT tell Harry.

Snape, however, though he isn't able to AK himself - and won't get AD 
to do it for him tries to find a way to ease his guilt due some 
punishment - he'll never wash himself for one thing.

Yet, in Harry, Snape sees 'the one who actually defeated someone who 
I feared enough to torture a baby with no effort at all' - and is 
bitter at him. Everytime he sees Neville he remembers *that* night 
again. Neville doesn't remember *that* night knowingly, only deep 
inside, where the core of emotions is...




From Edblanning at aol.com  Tue Feb 19 15:24:41 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:24:41 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Mrs. Norris and the Map (Animals and Crowds)
Message-ID: <69.2263b3ed.29a3c839@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35463

In a message dated 19/02/02 11:57:07 GMT Standard Time, lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com 
writes:


> --- Jake Storm <that1guy_hp at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I know that it's not an original theory, but one
> > that has made sense to me 
> > is that the MM only provides names based on people
> > known to the viewer. That 
> > would explain many things: why HRH never saw "Peter
> > Pettigrew" anywhere on 
> > the map, why they always see Mrs. Norris as "Mrs.
> > Norris" no matter what her 
> > real name might be, or her real form.
> > 
> > Does that make any sense?
> 




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




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Feb 19 16:16:00 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 16:16:00 -0000
Subject: Snape vs. Neville, Dumbledore, Harry
In-Reply-To: <a4tt4n+votc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4tto0+lpc5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35464

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

> Just another thought - Snape may well have been among the cruciating 
> group of DEs which is why Neville is so afraid of him. Heck - what
if 
> the DEs demanded that Snape puts the crucio curse on Neville - (to 
> prove his loyalty or some such) - [i]that[/i] would have been the 
> reason for him to leave the DEs. Torturing babies... Poor little 
> babies who can't even talk! He will NOT go that far! But he's too 
> afraid of Voldemort to refuse.

Nope, the timing doesn't work on that one.  The Longbottoms were
tortured *after* Voldemort's defeat.  That was why the Lestranges went
after them in the firstplace -- they thought the Longbottoms had some
information on LV's whereabouts.  But Snape turned double-agent before
Voldemort's fall; Dumbledore makes a point of emphasizing that in the
Pensieve scene.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Feb 19 16:20:15 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 16:20:15 -0000
Subject: FILK: Eve of His Rising
Message-ID: <a4ttvv+irse@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35465

Eve of His Rising
to the tune of "Eve of Destruction"  by Barry MacGuire

SCENE: Dumbledore, Harry and Snape are trying to convince Fudge that
Voldemort has returned.

DUMBLEDORE:
You must believe me, I ain't lyin',
Voldemort's back, there's no denyin',
His army's evil ranks are quickly multiplyin',
There's gonna be a war, that's what I'm specifyin',
In the starry sky, the Dark Mark will be flyin',
Yet you stick your head in the sand again and again,
You don't believe we're past the eve of his rising.

HARRY:
My testimony I present for your inspection,
I tell you I was there for his resurrection,
Voldemort's back, we'll all need protection,
Made a body of his own, with blood and flesh and bone,
So stand your ground, Fudge, don't fool around, Fudge!
Yet you stick your head in the sand again and again,
You don't believe we're past the eve of his rising.

SNAPE:
Back in the days of Voldy's domination,
At each Death Eater's initiation,
He'd mark our arms as a sign of our vocation,
And any time he felt like giving an oration,
He'd make us apparate to his location.
And now it's back, that gruesome decoration.
It's time to start our battle preparations,
Yet you stick your head in the sand again and again,
You don't believe we're past the eve of his rising.

FUDGE:
Get away from me, I don't want to see it!
This cannot be, I won't believe it!
That boy, he is deranged and melodramatic,
He's been unhinged by experience traumatic,
You-know-who is dead, on that I'm quite emphatic,
I may be narrow-minded, wussy and dogmatic,
But I'm still the man in charge, so don't give me any static!
Yes, I stick my head in the sand again and again,
I won't believe we're past the eve of his rising.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 19 17:25:17 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 17:25:17 -0000
Subject: Mrs. Norris and the Map (Animals and Crowds)
In-Reply-To: <a4tor8+2649@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4u1pt+opj9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35466

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" <jbryson at r...> wrote:
> I think JKR is a writer, not a cartographer. We imagine a map of the
> entire Hogwarts property on a single piece of parchment.  That need 
> not be the case. A'la the fancy binoculars in GF, the map may have
> features: at least a zoom capability, and perhaps even a search
> feature.  What else would be handy?

Good point. Mauraders made it after becoming animagi, knew almost all 
secret passages etc. (not the Secret Chamber)... It was done to aid 
them to avoid beeing seen. Yet, they'd not be after letting just 
anyone see them on the map in case it got lost. The map automatically 
shows those who aren't trying to hide themselves. It might, however, 
require a password to show "people under invisibility cloak/using 
polyjuice potion" - and yet other Password to show animagi. So Lupin 
*could* see Peter in rat form on it, but twins or Snape could not. 
And the map will show the animagi only to the one who says it.




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 19 17:24:25 2002
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 17:24:25 -0000
Subject: Release Date for OOP: Speculation
In-Reply-To: <a4tcah+g117@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4u1o9+h7oi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35467

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "roleplayer_m_uk" <shanerichmond at h...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "abigailnus" <abigailnus at y...> wrote:
> (and for heaven's sake, dumbing down?  All that happened was 
> > that some slang words that American kids wouldn't recognize were 
> changed - and that is the target audience, you 
> > know - kids)
> 
> Some slang words that American kids wouldn't recognise? 
> Like "philosopher", you mean?

Of course American kids would know what a philosopher is.  It's one of those Greek blokes who spent their lives in 
barrels or walked around carrying an unlit lamp looking for a good man or drank poison even though they didn't have 
to.  They might, however, not recognize that "philosopher" in the context of the phrase The Philosopher's Stone, also 
means a magician or an alchemist.  Not that any of this matters because I wasn't trying to determine whether the 
changes in the book were justified or not, I was making the point that to say that a book has been "dumbed down" 
because half a dozen words have been changed is nothing short of snobbism.  The American version is constantly 
derided as if it were "Harry Potter - The Cliff Notes Version" and I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but the UK 
edition isn't exactly Ulysses as far as difficulty of prose is concerned, and I'm frankly quite tired of hearing about it.

And for the record, I've read both versions (I own the UK edition and was visiting relatives in the States who had the 
US edition) and I didn't even notice the difference.  I don't really feel that the changes were justified, but I can't say 
that I care one way or another because if really *doesn't matter* - it's the same book.

Abigail






From devin.smither at yale.edu  Tue Feb 19 18:06:45 2002
From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 18:06:45 -0000
Subject: The character I pity the most
Message-ID: <a4u47l+ttip@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35468

I just started rereading GoF today (actually, I'm reading the British 
version for the first time).  I've reread the first three books 
(British versions), and I think I can safely say that the character I 
really feel sorry for is Frank Bryce.  Honestly, the war veteran who 
tried to prove his innocence (even tried to talk about Tom Riddle, 
Jr. being there that day, though he didn't know who he was), and all 
he gets for his trouble is ire from the village for the rest of his 
miserable life of gardening and loneliness, then gets killed by the 
man responsible for that lifetime of agony.

What really did it for me was two things, one was when he listened to 
Voldy and Pettigrew talking and got worried about their planning to 
murder someone, yet when they called him out (after Nagini saw him), 
he really stayed as brave as he could (I don't consider it cowardly 
to scream when you see baby Voldemort) and stood his ground.

The other really made my eyes fill with tears.  It was when Rowling 
described the children of Little Hangleton breaking the windows and 
breaking into the house...and the kids being amused at Frank limping 
over to them, shouting all the while, convinced they hated him so 
because they considered him a murderer.  Honestly, I was really upset 
when I read that (at the kids' maliciousness and at Frank's thoughts 
on why they did these terrible things to him).  That's fifty years' 
worth of solitude, resentment, and just giving up on others because 
of your own tarnished reputation.  Really almost made me cry.

Does anyone else see the tremendous pathos here?  Or was I just wound 
up today?

Devin, who can't believe he thought himself up another little 
character breakthrough at this stage of the game




From Jefrigo21 at aol.com  Tue Feb 19 18:17:11 2002
From: Jefrigo21 at aol.com (Jefrigo21 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 13:17:11 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Release Date for OOP: Speculation
Message-ID: <150.928ff5a.29a3f0aa@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35469

abigailnus" wrote
They might, however, not recognize that "philosopher" in the context of
the phrase The Philosopher's Stone, also 
means a magician or an alchemist.  Not that any of this matters because I
wasn't trying to determine whether the 
changes in the book were justified or not, I was making the point that to say
that a book has been "dumbed down" 

____________
I think they should have put a mini-dictionary in the book so that if someone wanted to know what Philosopher's Stone means.  I had to ask a college professor what it means.  I have been saying/thinking this all along.

Joanna who has to cram for a mid-term and write a paper.



From tanie_05 at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 19 19:00:14 2002
From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 19:00:14 -0000
Subject: FLIRTAC
Message-ID: <a4u7bu+pja0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35470

Hey everybody. I have just gotta post this. I think that there may 
actually be some basis in FLIRTAC. This struck me as I was rereaading 
CoS. As we already know, Mrs. Norris was the first victim of the 
basilisk. But why would a huge serpent attack a cat - *unless* Mrs. 
Norris really is a human too, (perhaps muggle-born or a muggle)? All 
its other victims were muggle-born human beings. Hmm...very though-
provoking. I'll post later. (I'm at school. :))

-Kyrstyne (who is impressed by whoever came up with FLIRTAC. --I 
think it was Tabouli, but I'm not sure. Sorry if I'm wrong. :)--)




From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Tue Feb 19 20:07:12 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 20:07:12 -0000
Subject: Release Date for OOP: Speculation
In-Reply-To: <150.928ff5a.29a3f0aa@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a4ub9g+3l7u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35471

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jefrigo21 at a... wrote:
 ____________
> I think they should have put a mini-dictionary in the book so that if someone 
wanted to know what Philosopher's Stone means.  I had to ask a college 
professor what it means.  I have been saying/thinking this all along.

Indeed, a poll that I placed in the Movie boards shows that nearly half of the 
American respondents hadn't heard of the Philosopher's Stone, pre-Harry.  And 
that's a group of relatively intellectual adults (since they're in the HPFGU 
groups).

But if you read the Levine interview, you'll see that he justified the language 
changes by saying that "American readers should have the exact same 
experience reading the book as British readers".  In other words, he didn't want 
them to have to figure things our from context or even look something up right 
in the back of the book.  Such a condescending attitude from an educator!

http://www.popogo.com/hol/words/c117.htm




From sarah at mcfarland.co.uk  Tue Feb 19 21:41:56 2002
From: sarah at mcfarland.co.uk (S)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 21:41:56 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as Vampire
In-Reply-To: <a4sgt7+a70h@eGroups.com>
References: <a4s7g4+ap84@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020219213841.033323c0@pop.ntlworld.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35472


><prefectmarcus at y...> wrote:
> > I doubt he is.  Why?
> >
> > * He is mean and nasty enough.  Why cheapen it by doing
>such a cliche?

And pippin_999 replied:

>I don't follow the argument here. He's not enough like a "real"
>vampire to be one, and yet if he is, it's a cliche?

It is a clich? to have a pale faced, interesting, pissed off/depressed 
character who dresses all in black to be revealed as a vampire. Personally, 
I find the idea interesting - but unless it was done very well, to me in 
would smack of being a gimmick, and would, in turn, cheapen the character 
of Snape.

~Say





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 19 17:01:13 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 17:01:13 -0000
Subject: Snape vs. Neville, Dumbledore, Harry
In-Reply-To: <a4tto0+lpc5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4u0cp+vpo2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35473

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> 
> Nope, the timing doesn't work on that one.  The Longbottoms were
> tortured *after* Voldemort's defeat.  That was why the Lestranges 
went
> after them in the firstplace -- they thought the Longbottoms had 
some
> information on LV's whereabouts.

Yes, afterwards - but before Snape knew he was *defeated*, not just 
away.

>  But Snape turned double-agent before
> Voldemort's fall; Dumbledore makes a point of emphasizing that in 
the
> Pensieve scene.

"I vouch for him" - it doesn't have to mean double-agent - only that 
Dumbledore guarantees him. On the moment - nothing of the past. What 
other things is there to implicate he's a spy? The trial, of course, 
taking place after his confession to Dumbledore.




From sandirs at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 19 21:43:47 2002
From: sandirs at hotmail.com (Sandi Steinberg)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 16:43:47 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: anti-SHIP: Ginny griping
Message-ID: <F24ZLMfmyhIgDlBbw2c00015434@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35474

Since Laura or Moongirl has used the Summoning Charm, obviously, to reach me 
(via the last paragraph), here I am:
>

Not all girls are as sweet and protected as Ginny, but virtually all go 
through the "silly" adolescent phase of heart-shattering crushes.  In this 
sense, I understand Ginny quite well, since I remember going through that 
stage myself, even though I was more like Hermione, a bookish only child who 
always did her own research on whatever she was interested in at the moment.

Ironically, my mother was always nagging at me to be more feminine and not 
such a bookworm..... no pleasing Moms, is there?

Sandi



>
> > Furthermore, it kind of irks me when people assume that the
> >majority of young girls are like Ginny.  I wasn't, and allot of my
> >friends weren't either.
>
>While I'm still not sure what you're idea of being "like Ginny" is,
>it's pretty clear based on our disparate reactions to her that it's
>different from mine, and probably our friend Sandi's as well.  Oh
>Sandi, dear Sandi - where have you gone?  I feel bad putting words
>into your mouth, but... I *think* she was just saying that Ginny's
>fairly typical, and possibly *more* typical than Hermione.  I do
>agree with that.
>




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





From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 19 18:32:48 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 18:32:48 -0000
Subject: Serpensortia
Message-ID: <a4u5og+4se6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35475

Previous posts were speculating that Snape's "shrewd and calculating 
look", after Harry spoke to the snake in "The Dueling Club" chapter 
of CoS, suggest that Snape suspected Harry was a parselmouth and had 
been testing him.  I've always read that look to mean that Snape was 
doing the exact same mental calculation that Ron and Hermione are 
doing at that moment.  

Heir of Slytherin on the loose + Harry is parselmouth = Everyone is 
going to suspect Harry is the Heir of Slytherin

The difference, of course, is that Snape will ENJOY Harry's 
discomfort when the whispering begins.  If Snape had been trying to 
prove Harry was a parselmouth, and had just succeeded, I would expect 
a different look.  Perhaps like the triumphant "gleam" he gets in PoA 
when he figures out that Harry's "old parchment" is directions into 
Hogsmeade.

So, why did Snape suggest "serpensortia" to Draco if not to test 
Harry?  Most of the curses, hexes, jinxes (whatever) that Draco 
probably knows will actually DO something  physical to Harry.  
(Examples: jelly-legs, furnunculus, tarantallegra, etc.) Kid stuff. 
But, as has been pointed out many times before, Snape prefers 
psychological torture over physical torture every time.  By telling 
Draco to conjure a dangerous snake right in front of Harry, Snape 
hopes to get the immense pleasure of watching Hary be terrorized. 
IMO, the idea that Snape has done this so he can enjoy seeing Harry 
frightened, seems reinforced by, 

"'Don't move, Potter,' said Snape lazily, clearly enjoying the sight 
of Harry standing motionless, eye to eye with the angry snake. 'I'll 
get rid of it...'"

Not only is Snape enjoying the sight, but he is letting Harry know 
that he, Snape, is in control of how long the terror will last-- more 
psychological torture. 

Last question, how did Snape know that Draco could 
do "serpensortia"?  Maybe it was always one of Lucius's favorites!  
Although I like the ideas that it is a Slytherin favorite, or that 
Snape taught it to Draco just as much.







From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 19 18:56:17 2002
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 18:56:17 -0000
Subject: The character I pity the most
In-Reply-To: <a4u47l+ttip@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4u74h+efa0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35476

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uilnslcoap" <devin.smither at y...> wrote:
> I just started rereading GoF today (actually, I'm reading the British 
> version for the first time).  I've reread the first three books 
> (British versions), and I think I can safely say that the character I 
> really feel sorry for is Frank Bryce.  Honestly, the war veteran who 
> tried to prove his innocence (even tried to talk about Tom Riddle, 
> Jr. being there that day, though he didn't know who he was), and all 
> he gets for his trouble is ire from the village for the rest of his 
> miserable life of gardening and loneliness, then gets killed by the 
> man responsible for that lifetime of agony.
> 
> Does anyone else see the tremendous pathos here?  Or was I just wound 
> up today?

I don't think you're alone in feeling sorry for Frank Bryce.  I guess he's just one more of those good people who died 
because they had the misfortune of crossing paths with Voldemort.  Although you're right in saying the the real 
tragedy is how Voldemort destroyed his life and doesn't even know about it.  I don't think it's a coincidence that Frank 
is a WWII veteran - remember the reference to DD defeating a powerful dark wizard in 1945?  I think the fact that 
Frank was injured - physically and emotionally - during that war puts him firmly on the side of the angels.

Abigail






From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Feb 19 22:53:02 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 22:53:02 -0000
Subject: Snape vs. Neville, Dumbledore, Harry
In-Reply-To: <a4u0cp+vpo2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4ul0e+tquj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35478

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> > 
> > Nope, the timing doesn't work on that one.  The Longbottoms were
> > tortured *after* Voldemort's defeat.  That was why the Lestranges 
> went
> > after them in the firstplace -- they thought the Longbottoms had 
> some
> > information on LV's whereabouts.
> 
> Yes, afterwards - but before Snape knew he was *defeated*, not just 
> away.

The wizarding world knew that VL was defeated within a day of its
happening; there are victory celebrations going on all over England in
the first chapter of PS/SS, even as Dumbledore and McGonnagal are
delivering baby Harry (freshly fetched by Hagrid from the ruins of the
Potters' house) to the Dursleys' door.

The attack on the Longbottoms took place considerably later, at a time
when everyone believed that such things couldn't happen anymore --
that's part of what made it so horrible.


> 
> >  But Snape turned double-agent before
> > Voldemort's fall; Dumbledore makes a point of emphasizing that in 
> the
> > Pensieve scene.
> 
> "I vouch for him" - it doesn't have to mean double-agent - only that 
> Dumbledore guarantees him. On the moment - nothing of the past. What 
> other things is there to implicate he's a spy? The trial, of course, 
> taking place after his confession to Dumbledore.

Dumbledore doesn't just vouch for him; he specifically states that
snape became a spy before Voldemort's downfall, "at great personal
risk".  This is what differentiates Snape from all the other DE's who
switched sides (or pretended to) only when it was safe, to save their
own skins.  Snape defected at a time when VL was at full power and
even appeared to be winning the war.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Tue Feb 19 23:58:36 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 23:58:36 -0000
Subject: Help - Need Quotes!
In-Reply-To: <a317n6+lem9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4uorc+58qs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35479

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bludger_witch" <bludger_witch at y...> wrote:
> I'm looking for 3 quotes, but simply cannot find them. I thumped 
> through PS several times and really start to feel like a dork.
> 
> 1. Ron's comment about Dean's West Ham poster - he says something 
> like "Mad!" or so...

There's a reference to the poster near the beginning of Chapter 9, towards the 
end of a paragraph that begins "Malfoy certainly did talk about flying a lot."

> 2. Ron calling Snape "ugly old bat" - and other bat references 
> regarding Snape (not sure if this one is PS or not)

JKR refers to Snape as "gliding over like a large and malevolent bat" in COS in 
Chapter 11, pg. 193 of the US hardcover.





From cindysphynx at home.com  Tue Feb 19 23:44:40 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 23:44:40 -0000
Subject: The character I pity the most
In-Reply-To: <a4u47l+ttip@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4uo18+7fi6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35480

Devin wrote:

>I think I can safely say that the character I 
> really feel sorry for is Frank Bryce.  

Oooh, a pity party!  This sounds like fun.  :-)

Actually, there are quite a number of characters to feel sorry for in 
HP.  I have little pangs about the plights of Lupin and Black, for 
instance.

But I guess the character(s) I feel most sorry for are the Diggorys.  
Cedric was killed for no reason at all, simply because he was in the 
wrong place at the wrong time.  His parents are left to grieve 
desperately for him.  None of the Diggorys did anything wrong; they 
were innocent bystanders.  Cedric died the youngest compared to 
most/all of the other characters who have died so far -- James, Lily, 
Frank, Bertha, Crouch Sr., Crouch Jr. -- and Cedric never had a 
chance to experience anything beyond life at Hogwarts.  

That's kinda pitiful.

Cindy (who saw "In The Bedroom" and found it very difficult to watch)




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Wed Feb 20 00:09:35 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:09:35 -0000
Subject: Not You, Ron (filk)
Message-ID: <a4upfv+kupr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35481

Not You, Ron 

(To the tune of Da Doo Ron Ron)

Dedicated to Marina

Hear another parody of this song at

http://www.capsteps.com  (scroll down to February 11)

THE SCENE: The Burrow. The five elder Weasleys brothers exercise 
their fraternal prerogative of ridiculing and debasing the youngest.

QUINTET
We're the Weasley brothers and our hearts are stout

RON (entering late, very out of breath)
And too Ron Ron Ron and too Ron Ron Ron

QUINTET
Head boys and Quidditch champs of great clout

RON (still panting)
And too Ron Ron Ron and too Ron Ron Ron

BILL: At finance I excel
CHARLIE: I fiery dragons quell
FRED & GEORGE: We fly like bats from Hell
QUINTET: Not you Ron Ron Ron Not you Ron Ron Ron

So if the five of us may dare to be upfront
To do with Ron Ron to do with Ron Ron
Our kid brother's turned out quite a runt
Askew Ron Ron Ron askew Ron Ron Ron

Of the litter, we're the pick
But Ron has made his shtick
Being the drab sidekick
Of the main taboo-boo of you-know-who-who

RON
I know what you were thinkin' when you wrote this tune

QUINTET
Too blue Ron Ron Ron too blue Ron Ron Ron

RON 
But to your taunts I am quite immune

QUINTET
Untrue Ron Ron Ron Untrue Ron Ron Ron

RON
Sure as my hair is red
I will wind up ahead
So I learned at Erised

QUINTET
Et tu Ron Ron Ron, Et tu Ron Ron Ron
Yeah, yeah, yeah
Et tu Ron Ron Ron, Et tu Ron Ron Ron
(repeat & fade)

  - CMC

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





From delineate at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 19 22:45:47 2002
From: delineate at hotmail.com (kwilson1003)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 22:45:47 -0000
Subject: The Prank (again)
Message-ID: <a4ukir+qpmf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35482

I've been lurking on this board for a while and was enjoying all the 
Snape vs Sirius messages.  It seems the whole prank that Sirius 
played on Snape has been discussed to death, but I still have a 
question about it so here goes.

It seems to be accepted fact that the prank occurred when Sirius and 
Snape were about 16 years old.  Is this mentioned in the book?  I'd 
actually assumed it was when they were a lot longer.  Probably just 
after they'd found out that Remus was a werewolf, but before they 
could become animagus (hence the whole epsiode of James risking his 
life to get Snape instead of just turning into a Stag).  

Oh - and another reason.  Snape is pretty smart.  He wouldn't have 
taken 5 or so years to become extremely curious about Remus.  He 
probably would have even figured it out by then.  I know that Sirius 
says in the book that Snape was snooping around and trying to get 
them expelled.  But Draco has been doing the same for Harry, pretty 
much from the beginning, and so I didn't think that Sirius was 
specifically referring to the whole marauding thing.  I feel that 
maybe it was just the animagus part.  It took them nearly three years 
and I imagine they had to sneak around to find somewhere to practice.

But maybe I missed something in the book.  Hard to believe 
considering I've read the thing so often : )

Karen





From porphyria at mindspring.com  Wed Feb 20 00:44:28 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 19:44:28 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Prank (again)
Message-ID: <Springmail.105.1014165868.0.67081500@springmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35483

Karen wrote:

> 
It seems to be accepted fact that the prank occurred when Sirius and 
> 
Snape were about 16 years old. Is this mentioned in the book? 

Snape mentions Sirius's age (and thus implies his too, since they were in the same year) towards the end of PoA while he is pleading with Dumbledore to believe his side of the story:

"Sirius Black showed 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?"

This is in the infirmary scene.

So yes, it's canon. :-)
~~Porphyria



From tanie_05 at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 20 00:40:38 2002
From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:40:38 -0000
Subject: The Prank (again)
In-Reply-To: <a4ukir+qpmf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4ura6+mp7o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35484

Hello, how are you today?

Karen wrote:
> It seems to be accepted fact that the prank occurred when Sirius 
and 
> Snape were about 16 years old.  Is this mentioned in the book?  I'd 
> actually assumed it was when they were a lot longer.  Probably just 
> after they'd found out that Remus was a werewolf, but before they 
> could become animagus (hence the whole epsiode of James risking his 
> life to get Snape instead of just turning into a Stag).  

FYI, it was mentioned. When D'dore wanted to speak to Harry & 
Hermione in private, Snape reminded D'dore that "Sirius Black was 
capable of murder at the age of sixteen".(-quoted from PoA, ch.21)

-Kyrstyne




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Wed Feb 20 00:57:16 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:57:16 -0000
Subject: The character I pity the most
In-Reply-To: <a4uo18+7fi6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4us9c+lli0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35485

Devin wrote:
> >I think I can safely say that the character I 
> > really feel sorry for is Frank Bryce.  

And Cindysphynx replied:
> Actually, there are quite a number of characters to feel sorry for 
> in HP.  I have little pangs about the plights of Lupin and Black, 
> for instance.
> But I guess the character(s) I feel most sorry for are the Diggorys. 

I'm with Devin here.  Frank Bryce's plight really gets to me.  It's 
not so much how he died -- he was 76 or so years old -- but the 
lonely, tortured life he led.  There's nothing to suggest that 
*anything* ever worked out in his life, and he really wasn't to blame 
for any of it.

I don't feel so bad for Cedric, because although he died young, he 
seemed to have had a happy life up until that point.  I think an 
unhappy life is worse than an early death.

I do feel bad for Cedric's parents.  By the way, it seemed to me that 
JKR wrote Amos Diggory is a rather unsympathetic way, gloating to 
Harry about how Cedric beat him in Quidditch and such.  I wonder if 
JKR was trying to soften the blow for readers when Amos loses his son?

I feel that Lupin has been treated horribly, but he seems to hold up 
fairly well.  I'm hoping there's better things in his future (although 
I won't be surprised if he gets killed off.)  I feel bad for Sirius, 
but this is tempered by the fact that I don't like him. 




From fiatincantatum at attbi.com  Wed Feb 20 01:05:08 2002
From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 20:05:08 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The character I pity the most
In-Reply-To: <a4us9c+lli0@eGroups.com>
References: <a4uo18+7fi6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C72AFF4.30181.2AA0867@localhost>

No: HPFGUIDX 35486

On 20 Feb 2002 at 0:57, judyserenity wrote:

> I do feel bad for Cedric's parents.  By the way, it seemed to me that 
> JKR wrote Amos Diggory is a rather unsympathetic way, gloating to 
> Harry about how Cedric beat him in Quidditch and such.  I wonder if 
> JKR was trying to soften the blow for readers when Amos loses his son?

Actually, I always felt that this scene had more to do with establishing the 
character of Cedric as being self-effacing and decent.  I mean, here's his 
father thinking he's got the best son in the world and all poor Ced can do is 
try (probably for the hundredth time) to explain to dear ol' Dad that he didn't 
REALLY beat Harry, that the dementors were involved and it wasn't a fair match. 
 And Dad never listens, because he's too busy being proud of his kid.

  
-- 
Fiat Incantatum 
fiatincantatum at attbi.com

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




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Wed Feb 20 01:38:51 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 01:38:51 -0000
Subject: Serpensortia
In-Reply-To: <a4u5og+4se6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4uunc+9q4i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35487

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jklb66" <jklb66 at y...> wrote:
> 

Excellent essay

> Last question, how did Snape know that Draco could 
> do "serpensortia"?  Maybe it was always one of Lucius's favorites!  
> Although I like the ideas that it is a Slytherin favorite, or that 
> Snape taught it to Draco just as much.

Maybe it's an old Biblical incantation? Just as I've previously noted 
that Eve was the first Parseltongue, perhaps Serpensortia comes from 
Exodus:

Exodus 4

Signs for Moses 

1 Moses answered, "What if they do not believe me or listen to me and 
say, 'The Lord did not appear to you'?" 
2 Then the Lord said to him, "What is that in your hand?" 
"A staff," he replied. 
3 The Lord said, "Throw it on the ground." 
Moses threw it on the ground and it became a snake, and he ran from 
it. 4 Then the Lord said to him, "Reach out your hand and take it by 
the tail." So Moses reached out and took hold of the snake and it 
turned back into a staff in his hand. 5 "This," said the Lord , "is 
so that they may believe that the Lord , the God of their fathers-the 
God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob-has appeared to 
you."

Exodus 7 Aaron's Staff Becomes a Snake 
8 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 9 "When Pharaoh says to 
you, 'Perform a miracle,' then say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and 
throw it down before Pharaoh,' and it will become a snake." 
10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the Lord 
commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his 
officials, and it became a snake. 11 Pharaoh then summoned wise men 
and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by 
their secret arts: 12 Each one threw down his staff and it became a 
snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs. 13 Yet Pharaoh's 
heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the Lord 
had said.

  - CMC




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Wed Feb 20 01:43:34 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:43:34 +1100
Subject: Parenting across cultures
Message-ID: <001601c1b9b0$b8344320$3736c2cb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35488

Gwen (quoting me):
> > He doesn't connect to his son. He threatens him, he bullies him
> > (verbally, *never* physically, IMO--that's part of Draco's problem),
> > he rewards him with material goods (inconsistently, btw) and
> > apparently indulges Narcissa's tendency to spoil him (sweets, choosing
> > Hogwarts over Durmstrang despite his reservations about Dumbledore).
> > But...he doesn't show his love in any meaningful way.<
>
> "You know, whenever I read people talking about Draco being neglected
> and abused, I keep getting a whiff of cultural and era differences at
> work.  The modern ideal of parents who hug their children regularly,
> tell them they're great all the time, strive to be encouraging and
> supportive and complimentary about everything they do, democratic,
> explanatory, negotiation based parenting, etc.etc. is a very recent
> and, I think, particularly American development."

Gwen:
> Tabouli. No. You have completely misconstrued what I was referring to;
I used some shorthand there because I've talked about this at length
before.  In fact, if you'll notice, I mentioned that I think
part of Draco's problem is that he is *not* disciplined consistently.<

Oo.  OK, sorry about that.  But do note that I said "whenever I read *people* saying that...", implying numerous past comments.  My mistake was apparently to class your comments in the same category.  From what I've seen in countless earlier posts (of which yours reminded me, though evidently the intention of yours was different), there's a strong contigent of Draco-sympathisers out there who argue that Lucius' comments in Knockturn Alley constitute abuse, and cite them as evidence that Draco is a neglected, pitiable figure whose self-esteem has been shattered by his father's criticism.  An interpretation which I suspect has its origin in the observation that Lucius' behaviour is manifestly *not* "supportive and encouraging and fostering Draco's self-esteem", fundamental tenets of the model of good parenting I described.

Inconsistent discipline is, I admit, a different thing (and apt to lead to a child who constantly pushes his luck because sometimes it works - intermittent reinforcement).

Gwen:
> This is not about culture and not about touchy-feely ickle
woobiekins crap.  I *hate* that modern psychological, "negotiation-based" as you put it,
parenting bullhockey.<

The point I was trying to make was that an assessment of someone's parenting like "is Lucius' behaviour abuse?" is depends on the standard of "good parenting" you are using.  And this standard *is* about culture.  Definitely.  Totally.  Where do we get our ideas about what good parenting is?  From our parents, from our media, from our society and the parenting we see working and not working in it.  Some Anglophones may reject that modern psychological parenting bullhockey, but they know about it, because they've seen it, read about it, watched it on TV and in movies.  Somone who grew up in Pakistan would probably never have heard of this style of parenting and the language that goes with it (as the various Pakistanis I interviewed told me).  Someone who grew up in an old-fashioned Chinese family (and I know *lots* of these, I'm even related to some) would have learned that parents rarely praise, if ever, because it encourages complacency and conceit... a good parent is a critical parent who motivates the child to keep on working hard.  My Singaporean Chinese cousins (now early to late 30s) were severely reprimanded (forget Lucius' mild sneers) and even caned when they did poorly at school, and are now happy, highly successful professionals and in functional relationships (evidence of operational "self-esteem"?).  I was appalled when I heard this, but then, I was brought up in Australia where such behaviour would be reportable and considered to do terrible damage to children.  Different cultural standards.

I worked with 30 teachers working with hearing-impaired children from non-Anglo-Australian cultural backgrounds, and fielded comment after question about the parenting styles the teachers had witnessed.  Being well-meaning people, they were falling over themselves saying everything *but* "those poor children are subjected to such terrible parenting!", as people want to when witnessing something that violates their cultural values about something as important as the way children are raised.  Fortunately, I'd got a list of the cultures they were working with in advance and read about and interviewed people in those communities to get an idea of those cultural groups' definitions of "good parenting", "good teaching" and so on, so I was able to put together an explanation of their different parenting logic (and what a well-meaning Anglo-Australian teacher could do about it).


Gwen:
> I'm not sure how you got to that extreme from my
saying merely that Lucius is not connected in any meaningful way to
Draco. I think Lucius cares about his son, but I don't get the
impression that he *likes* his son--he disdains him. He doesn't know
what to do with Draco.<

Ah.  Here I think we have another example of cultural differences, in this case Australian/US.  Australians, as I've often mentioned, tend to be *very* cynical and anti-pretension.  A lot of Australians (myself, to some degree, included) would barely manage to get the phrases "quality time", "connect with his son" or "express his love in a meaningful way" out of their mouths without several truckloads of irony to compensate for saying what they would see as utterly EWW!  modern (and unforgiveably American) "psychological parenting bullhockey".  I think my immediate association of these phrases with the bullhockey you mention was me making the overinclusive Australian assumption that the phrases go together with the philosophy.

Gwen:
> In short, Lucius is motivated by *selfish* reasons to display first a "normal"
father-son relationship, and then his firm parenting style, to someone
who might otherwise get the impression that Lucius is a pushover. It's
not about Draco at all.<

Sounds like status consciousness all over to me.  Though the very notion that parenting *should* be child-centred rather than parent-centred (or extended family centred) is individualist.  In a lot of cultures the overall needs and image of the family are considered to be more important than the specific individual needs of the child, and the child endorses this... it would be unforgiveably selfish to put your own needs before those of the parents who raised you and looked after you and to whom you have a lifelong obligation.  Unthinkable.  (As oft my mother tells her foul and selfish daughter...)

Tabouli.


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




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Wed Feb 20 02:18:25 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:18:25 +1100
Subject: Parenting across cultures: hasty amendment
Message-ID: <003501c1b9b5$312f7f20$3736c2cb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35489

Ooo dear, just reread my own post and realised how badly the following came across:

> Ah.  Here I think we have another example of cultural differences, in this case Australian/US.  Australians, as I've often mentioned, tend to be *very* cynical and anti-pretension.  A lot of Australians (myself, to some degree, included) would barely manage to get the phrases "quality time", "connect with his son" or "express his love in a meaningful way" out of their mouths without several truckloads of irony to compensate for saying what they would see as utterly EWW!  modern (and unforgiveably American) "psychological parenting bullhockey".  I think my immediate association of these phrases with the bullhockey you mention was me making the overinclusive Australian assumption that the phrases go together with the philosophy.<

Ooo dear, ooo dear, let me rephrase (cross-cultural trainers have been sued for less).  What we have here is a difference in communication style.  In the US, I assume that phrases such as those I mention are in reasonably common usage.  Americans in general are much more comfortable talking about feelings and relationships than Australians (and Brits).  The proportion of people who go to therapists in the US is, I believe, much *much* higher than it is here.  Hence there is comparatively little stigma attached to using phrases like "express his love in a meaningful way".

In Australia there's a huge stigma attached to phrases like these.  For a start they concern emotions (we've inherited the stoic ideal from the British), and for another thing, they are popular borrowings from therapeutic language, to which few Australians have been exposed except through popular media from the US.  There's a lurking resentment of the strength of US cultural influence in Australia, where American TV, slang, fast food etc. are fast displacing the original Australian equivalents.  As a result, using such phrases implies (a) a cultural taboo-breaking expression of emotions, and (b) embracing the widely resented American cultural influences.  Hence Australians don't use them much at all, except with extreme irony to use them for their meaning while rejecting the emotionalism and Americanism they imply.

As for the "bullhockey" (great word) bit, well, let me step back from that one.  I'm all for a bit of democratic, self-esteem fostering parenting, in a sort of "parents as kindly managers who support their staff but firmly lay down the law" way.  Link to individualism here... if your children are going to be living in a society where it's fundamentally important to be independent, assert themselves, show initiative, stand up for their rights, make their own decisions, etc.etc. a strong belief in themselves and their judgment is a very good idea.  This, presumably, is why democratic parenting is becoming the ideal in individualist countries.

Tabouli.


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




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 20 02:59:45 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 02:59:45 -0000
Subject: Help - Need Quotes!
In-Reply-To: <a317n6+lem9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4v3f1+qur1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35490

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bludger_witch" <bludger_witch at y...> wrote:
> I'm looking for 3 quotes, but simply cannot find them. I thumped 
> through PS several times and really start to feel like a dork.
> 
> 1. Ron's comment about Dean's West Ham poster - he says something 
> like "Mad!" or so...

In GoF ch.12, "Dean had tacked up a poster of Viktor Krum over his 
bedside table.  His old poster of the West Ham football team was 
right next to it.  'Mental, ' Ron sighed, shaking his head at the 
completely stationary football players." 

I tried to find the quote in which Ron actually pokes the West Ham 
poster with his wand to make them move, but couldn't find it, sorry.





From tanie_05 at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 20 03:24:19 2002
From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 03:24:19 -0000
Subject: Christmases & Birthdays
Message-ID: <a4v4t3+2r0f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35491

Hi. Just thought of something. Have you ever noticed that no else's 
birthday is highlighted in the books? I mean for all we know, Harry 
hasn't gotten neither Ron or Hermione a birthday present. Where are 
their gifts, better yet, when are their birthdays? Same goes for 
Christmas. Ron & Hermione give Harry a present but where's their 
gifts from Harry? I think our friend is being a bit selfish. If I'm 
wrong please let me know. I'm just a little bothered by this though. 
Oh well.

-Kyrstyne(who is a little shocked Harry could even possibly be so 
selfish...the horror! :-O)




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 20 03:52:39 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 03:52:39 -0000
Subject: Christmases & Birthdays
In-Reply-To: <a4v4t3+2r0f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4v6i7+bhal@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35492

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tanie_05" <tanie_05 at h...> wrote:
> Hi. Just thought of something. Have you ever noticed that no else's 
> birthday is highlighted in the books? I mean for all we know, Harry 
> hasn't gotten neither Ron or Hermione a birthday present. Where are 
> their gifts, better yet, when are their birthdays? Same goes for 
> Christmas. Ron & Hermione give Harry a present but where's their 
> gifts from Harry? I think our friend is being a bit selfish. If I'm 
> wrong please let me know. I'm just a little bothered by this 
though. 
> Oh well.
> 
> -Kyrstyne(who is a little shocked Harry could even possibly be so 
> selfish...the horror! :-O)

During Harry's first year, there is no way he could get gifts for his 
friends.  At this point in his life, the only time he's ever been 
shopping with money in his pocket was in Diagon Alley with Hagrid, 
and he didn't know Ron or Hermione yet.  

In his second and third years, I don't think there is a mention of 
what Harry gets his friends (it bothered me too) but I'm hopeful that 
they just aren't mentioned. And don't forget, shopping is still a 
problem.  He gets to go to Diagon Alley once a year and he 
isn't "allowed" in Hogsmeade yet.  Shopping in muggle stores won't 
work because he doesn't have muggle money. Harry will just have to 
owl-post order like Hermione does.

In his fourth year, we know that Harry gives both Ron and Hermione 
omnioculars at the Quidditch World Cup and says to Ron "It's your 
Christmas present for the next ten years," so Ron won't feel bad 
about the high price. Then at Christmas, Harry does give Ron a 
Christmas present as well. I'm sure if Ron got one, Hermione did too; 
it just isn't mentioned becuase she, unlike Ron, doesn't get upset 
about it.

When are Ron and Hermione's birthdays?  Hermione says in PoA that 
hers is in September, and I read somewhere (The Lexicon?) that Ron's 
is March 1.




From tanie_05 at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 20 03:58:30 2002
From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 03:58:30 -0000
Subject: Christmases & Birthdays
In-Reply-To: <a4v6i7+bhal@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4v6t6+nsf2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35493

OK. Thanks. Now I feel A LOT better. (Trust me. It was *really* 
bothering me.) :) 

-Kyrstyne(who can now breathe from relief, SIGH)




From Whirdy at aol.com  Wed Feb 20 05:26:07 2002
From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:26:07 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: The Powers Behind Draco and His Cronies
Message-ID: <cf.13098d3e.29a48d6f@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35494

In a message dated 2/19/02 12:04:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
catlady at wicca.net writes:


> Crabbe and Goyle might be willing to die for Draco, and to submit to 
> endlessly Stunning for practice, out of a kind of dog-like loyalty, 
> even if Draco is not a very good master (still less a friend). 
> 

Might not Vincent and Gregory be so loyal to Malfoy on the basis of 
instructions from there Dear Old Dads, who are Lucius's subordinates in the 
Dark Side?  Aside from evil cunning (IIRC) the mental processes of C & G must 
revolve around eating and sleeping and each walking a pace behind and to the 
right and left of DM.

However, at what point do the academic standards of Hogwarts enter the mix.  
Is there a Hogwarts Building Fund or an Alumni Group that accepts generous 
contributions from rah-rah boosters.  LM probably exercises less influence 
now than when he was one of the Governors.

whirdy




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




From kschaefe at gwu.edu  Wed Feb 20 00:10:12 2002
From: kschaefe at gwu.edu (erised_straeh)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:10:12 -0000
Subject: Ginny's disappearance in PoA
Message-ID: <a4uph4+ovlj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35495

Hello, everyone.  I'm really new to this list, so my first hope is 
that I'll get posted.  I have tried to review previous postings, a 
truly daunting task, but have quickly learned that I can barely keep 
up with current postings.  Therefore, I am at grave risk of posting 
something already mentioned.  So here it goes -- oh and it's a bit 
long!

First, let me say that I am a Ginny supporter.  I don't think Cho 
will ever be more than an outsider that Harry is fond of from afar 
(being good at Quidditch is not everything in a relationship) and 
Hermione and Harry would just end in them always butting heads --his 
fame and inherent abilities against her need to be the best in class 
and know everything. 

Anyway, I cannot believe that Ginny played such a significant role in 
CoS for no reason.  And, as JKR has herself said that Ginny will have 
a more significant role in OotP, I can only expect that that is 
because of at least some connection in OotP to CoS.  I've always 
thought CoS was a step out of the progression we see in the other 
three books, so OotP will be where we see it fall into place I think.

OK, so what about Ginny in PoA?  I've noticed a lot of the Ginny 
debate mentions that she virtually disappears in PoA making one 
wonder how JKR can develop her enough to make here a viable choice 
for Harry. Ginny defenders, on the other hand, point out that it 
often depends on the context of her behavior.  For example, Ginny's 
tears at the beginning of the first book are called immature for a 
ten year old, but some have responded that if you look at the context 
(her last brother going to Hogwart's, she isn't going and is stuck 
home with overprotective mom who won't let her grow up and find 
herself) the tears are justifiable.

I think PoA offers another case of Ginny behavior open to multiple 
interpretations.  Ginny gets all shaky around the dementors because 
she has nasty stuff in her head like Harry has nasty stuff in his.  
Stuff Ron, Neville and Hermione don't have.  (That memory charm on 
Neville must have been really good.)  Ginny has a whole year worth of 
stuff, in fact, a lot of which she probably doesn't normally 
remember.  Now, picture a 12-year old who's had barely three months 
to recover from such a horrible experience, still a little shaky, 
probably quickly learned no one could really understand what she had 
gone through and so on.  Then, along comes a dementor, and it all 
comes rushing back and then some.  So, how does she react?  She 
shakes, she cries, she curls up and then she spends the rest of the 
year in class, in her room with her friends, and studying in the 
library.  She's sure not going outside where those dementors are.  
OK, maybe she ventures out for a Quidditch match, but, next thing you 
know, dementors everywhere, Harry falling off his broom.  That's it, 
she's locking herself in her room and not coming out 'til it's time 
to go home. (That's exaggerated, of course, but you know what I 
mean.) We don't see this because Harry doesn't see it.  Harry does 
lack a little in the sensitivity area, as has been pointed out 
elsewhere, so he wouldn't ask her how she was feeling and she 
wouldn't feel comfortable going to him.  She could have talked to 
Hermione about it, but again, that's outside Harry's ken. Thus, that 
is my rationale on why Ginny disappears in PoA, to be seen briefly in 
GoF and to fully, I hope, reemerge in OotP. (Like a butterfly or 
perhaps . . . like a phoenix? Hmm?)

One more thing, hiding may not be a sign of strength, but I just 
think she was trying to heal and those dementors were constantly 
opening up the wounds.  Recognizing her need to heal actually would 
indicate a great deal of self-awareness on her part. So, there you 
go.  Ginny's disappearance is not a sign of unimportance, but an 
example of a character's absence indicating development.  

K







From mdemeran at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 20 04:11:09 2002
From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (Meg Demeranville)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 22:11:09 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco and Lucius
References: <a4ts5s+10kl1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <OE539lSeRneSQJCbYJi00020935@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35496

I have been following this argument with much interest and I couldn't figure out why Draco irks me so much until I came across this email. 

gwendolyngrace  said: <snip>"I think Lucius has failed to be *any* kind of parent, is what I'm saying."
<snip>
"No, on the whole, I have a feeling Lucius does not present a discernible pattern to Draco. The occasional scold, followed by a sizable material reward, is at best a mixed signal, and at worst could be taken by Draco as an apology or an admission of some weird form of guilt. The example of giving a child expensive presents to make up for prior assaults is a good one here--not, I think, what Lucius intended, but certainly in that Draco could take it that way. Lucius, IMO, is not a man who apologizes--to anyone--but it would be consistently self-centred of Draco to take any gift as a peace offering."
<snip>

And with that I figured out why Draco irks me so much. I babysit and tutor this kid! This kid has no consistant parenting at all. Like Draco, he comes from a well off family with absent parents. His parents are around, they just dont care what the kids do. I have watched this kid do horrendous things, including playing sniper with a paint ball gun onto the golf course his house looks over, hit a golfer and heard his parents just tell him to quit, only to buy him more paintballs the same day. But I have also watched this kid get tossed across the room for cursing at his sister. His parents have no consistant punishment system so its always luck of the draw with his punishments. This kid thrives on seeing what he can get away with next, because he knows 9 times out of  he is only going to get scolded and get some sort of reward afterwards. I think Draco is the same way. He knows, pretty much, how far he can push his dad and likes to see how far he can push others. Once he figures out how far he can push, he will keep going right up to that line. I think for example, Draco has figured out that the best button to push with Ron is money, with Harry, anything concering Hermione or Ron, and with Snape, he can get away with anything. I think he will continue seeing how far he can push people because it gives him the attention he craves. Sure its not the right type of attention, but attention of any sort would be welcome for him.

Heading to bed before a 16 hour day at work tomorrow,
Meg

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





From Caeser56 at si.rr.com  Wed Feb 20 08:57:22 2002
From: Caeser56 at si.rr.com (caes56)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 08:57:22 -0000
Subject: Christmases & Birthdays
In-Reply-To: <a4v4t3+2r0f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4vodi+m08c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35497

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tanie_05" <tanie_05 at h...> wrote:
> Hi. Just thought of something. Have you ever noticed that no 
else's 
> birthday is highlighted in the books? I mean for all we know, 
Harry 
> hasn't gotten neither Ron or Hermione a birthday present. Where 
are 
> their gifts, better yet, when are their birthdays? Same goes for 
> Christmas. Ron & Hermione give Harry a present but where's their 
> gifts from Harry? I think our friend is being a bit selfish. If 
I'm 
> wrong please let me know. I'm just a little bothered by this 
though. 
> Oh well.
> 
> -Kyrstyne(who is a little shocked Harry could even possibly be so 
> selfish...the horror! :-O)


Hello- I have a bit of good news for you! I've finally found one of 
the interviews where J.K. Rowling answers that very same question! 
Mind you, I've just spent two hours of my life on this, for one 
line! dangit! Anyways, this is the quote:

Question:  Ron and Hermione give Harry gifts... does he ever give 
them birthday presents?
JKR: Yes, Harry does buy presents back! But I've never focused on 
their birthdays yet-- there hasn't been room! 

This is taken from Mugglenet.com, at the following URL:
http://www.mugglenet.com/aolchat1.shtml

The interview is an AOL Chat with JKR, as should be obvious from the 
URL. Also, I believe this topic was covered in A&E's Biography of 
JKR, for those of you who watched/taped it! I hope this makes you a 
bit happier!

-Vin





From laoisecronin at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 20 10:54:08 2002
From: laoisecronin at yahoo.com (laoisecronin)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:54:08 -0000
Subject: The character I pity the most
In-Reply-To: <a4uo18+7fi6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a4vv8g+8fj1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35498

---..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> Devin wrote:
> 
  Cedric died the youngest compared to 
> most/all of the other characters who have died so far -- James, 
Lily, 
> Frank, Bertha, Crouch Sr., Crouch Jr. -- and Cedric never had a 
> chance to experience anything beyond life at Hogwarts.  
> 
> That's kinda pitiful.
> 
> I was thinking about that when i re-read GOF. Mr Diggory says 
something about beating Harry in Quidditch being something Cedric can 
tell his grand children, i read that and just thought it's not going 
to happen. Then he says he'll be glad when Cedric passes his 
apperating test, this time i was almost wailing,it's not going to 
happen!. It kinda makes it more obvious that he was going to have a 
normal life and just can't  expierence it because of Voldemort. No 
wonder Harry feels guilty about someone else dying in the plot to get 
him.




From midwife34 at aol.com  Wed Feb 20 13:58:01 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:58:01 -0000
Subject: Parenting across cultures: hasty amendment
In-Reply-To: <003501c1b9b5$312f7f20$3736c2cb@price>
Message-ID: <a50a19+6ibg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35499

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> wrote:
> Ooo dear, just reread my own post and realised how badly the 
following came across:
> 
> > Ooo dear, ooo dear, let me rephrase (cross-cultural trainers have 
been sued for less).  What we have here is a difference in 
communication style.  In the US, I assume that phrases such as those 
I mention are in reasonably common usage.  Americans in general are 
much more comfortable talking about feelings and relationships than 
Australians (and Brits).  The proportion of people who go to 
therapists in the US is, I believe, much *much* higher than it is 
here.  Hence there is comparatively little stigma attached to using 
phrases like "express his love in a meaningful way".
> 
> Tabouli, have you ever spent time in the US and around US kids? 
Because what you are describing does not happen here in the US with 
the majority of families. The way our health care system works, psych 
services are woefully neglected in most family medical coverage 
insurance policies. So the examples you are siting are pretty much 
the upper middle class or wealthy that can offord psych services by 
paying out of pocket. I have never heard any anyone of my friends 
spout the phrase " express his love in a meaningful way", if they 
did, there would be alot of eye rolling from those in hearing 
distance of the conversation.
> 
> As for the "bullhockey" (great word) bit, well, let me step back 
from that one.  I'm all for a bit of democratic, self-esteem 
fostering parenting, in a sort of "parents as kindly managers who 
support their staff but firmly lay down the law" way.  Link to 
individualism here... if your children are going to be living in a 
society where it's fundamentally important to be independent, assert 
themselves, show initiative, stand up for their rights, make their 
own decisions, etc.etc. a strong belief in themselves and their 
judgment is a very good idea.  This, presumably, is why democratic 
parenting is becoming the ideal in individualist countries.
> 
> Tabouli, I think you are making great leaps in judging a whole 
culture based on just a few experiences. Let me ask again, have you 
ever lived in the US for any length of time to be making this 
assessment? Reading a few books by so-called expert US authors on 
child rearing and watching a few imported television programs is not 
enough to base an opinion on US childrearing practices. Do you 
yourself have children? If not, I can't wait until you do to see if 
some of yyour opinions change....:-) ( no insult intended here, just 
a pet peeve of mine when people who are childless try to discuss 
child rearing principles who have no first hand experience)

Jo Ellen




From msn.tsf at hccnet.nl  Wed Feb 20 13:45:26 2002
From: msn.tsf at hccnet.nl (Yoris)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:45:26 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Animagi: can they chose what they will become?/How did Rita Skeeters become an Animaga?
Message-ID: <004f01c1ba14$da927c70$9600000a@NEWPC>

No: HPFGUIDX 35500

"Does the animal one turns into as an Animagi reflect your personality? 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!"

This is a part of a JKR interview and it suggests you can't chose what you'l
become, but Peter Pettigrew did become a rat so he could push the 'button' on
the willow, so how did they know one of them was going to be a small animal
capable of pushing the button without getting beaten? Can't they chose what
they become but will they know in advance? if they can't chose what they
will become, how did Rita know she would become an insect? (because any big
animal she could turn in would be completely useless)

Further more this brings me to the question: How did Rita Skeeter became an
Animaga?
 I mean it took 3 of the most brilliant students hogwarts ever had (Remus,
James and Sirius) working together for 3 years to become animagi... even
Peter Petigrew, although described as the least of the 4, still a powerfull
wizard (he kills cedric using AK, a spell that needs alot of power behind
it, moody says if all children in the classroom would do it simoultaniously
still he woudn't be harmed) could only manage to do it with ALOT of help
from his 3 friends. So how did Rita Skeeter, in my opinion a witch with
below average magic capability;s manage to become an animaga without help?
(she probably hadn't (m)any friends at school since she always was
gossipping about everyone and she couldn't ask the MOM cause she became
unregistered animaga)





From Whirdy at aol.com  Wed Feb 20 14:37:43 2002
From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:37:43 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] About Mrs. Norris and the Map 
Message-ID: <b4.6db6321.29a50eb7@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35501

In a message dated 2/19/02 6:57:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com writes:


> I don't think he ever saw any animal in any form on
> the map. Yes - the animagi, but they're not really
> animals, are they?  There are never owls, or mice or
> hippogriffs on the map, only humans.  The map would be
> too cluttered otherwise.
> 
> 

But HP does see Mrs. Norris on the MM in PoA.

whirdy


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




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Feb 20 14:51:38 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:51:38 -0000
Subject: Animagi: can they chose what they will become?/How did Rita Skeeters become an Animaga?
In-Reply-To: <004f01c1ba14$da927c70$9600000a@NEWPC>
Message-ID: <a50d5q+80vn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35502

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Yoris" <msn.tsf at h...> wrote:

> This is a part of a JKR interview and it suggests you can't chose
what you'l
> become, but Peter Pettigrew did become a rat so he could push the
'button' on
> the willow, so how did they know one of them was going to be a small
animal
> capable of pushing the button without getting beaten? 

I don't think they knew, I think they just got lucky it turned out
that way.  If Peter had become a large animal, they would've just had
to work around it.  One of the Marauders would've had to approach the
Willow in human form and push the button with a stick before
transforming (we know it can be done, since Snape and Pomfrey both did
it).

When you think about it, there are all sorts of risks associated with
becoming an animagus?  What if you turn into fish?  Better keep a tub
full of water handy when you're practicing.  Or you could become an
elephant and crash through the floor.  No wonder the MoM regulates it.

The Marauders got lucky that all of them turned into animals that are
normally found in England, so it was not too weird if someone saw
them.  It would've been awkward if one of them turned out to be a
kangaroo or a polar bear.



Can't they chose what
> they become but will they know in advance? if they can't chose what
they
> will become, how did Rita know she would become an insect? (because
any big
> animal she could turn in would be completely useless)

I suppose, like the Marauders, she just crossed her fingers and hoped
for the best, and got lucky.


> So how did Rita Skeeter, in my opinion a witch with
> below average magic capability;s manage to become an animaga without
help?

I don't remember the book giving any indication of Rita's magical
ability.  Just because someone is obnoxious and unethical doesn't mean
she can't be a powerful witch.  Or maybe she just has a freakish
talent in one field (transformation), but is no good at other forms of
magic?

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From pollux46 at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 20 17:12:45 2002
From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:12:45 -0000
Subject: The character I pity the most
In-Reply-To: <a4us9c+lli0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a50led+6k4o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35503

 
Devin wrote:
> > >I think I can safely say that the character I 
> > > really feel sorry for is Frank Bryce.  
> 
And Cindysphynx replied:
> > But I guess the character(s) I feel most sorry for are the 
Diggorys. 
"judyserenity" wrote: 
> I'm with Devin here.  Frank Bryce's plight really gets to me.  It's 
> not so much how he died -- he was 76 or so years old -- but the 
> lonely, tortured life he led.  There's nothing to suggest that 
> *anything* ever worked out in his life, and he really wasn't to 
blame 
> for any of it.
> 
> I don't feel so bad for Cedric, because although he died young, he 
> seemed to have had a happy life up until that point.  I think an 
> unhappy life is worse than an early death.
> 
> I do feel bad for Cedric's parents.  By the way, it seemed to me 
that 
> JKR wrote Amos Diggory is a rather unsympathetic way, gloating to 
> Harry about how Cedric beat him in Quidditch and such.  I wonder if 
> JKR was trying to soften the blow for readers when Amos loses his 
son?


Well, I'd have to agree with Cindy here. I pity Cedric far more than 
any other character we've seen in the books up till now. Yeah, of 
course I feel sorry for poor Frank as well. He had a lousy life 
through no fault of his own. The village was unfair on him and those 
rotten kids cruel. But, see, at least Frank * had* a life. Cedric was 
robbed of his far too early on. He was just seventeen, he wasn't even 
out of school, he'd seen nothing of the world. And this is made even 
more tragic by the fact that he had promise. He was, as Dumbledore 
puts it, "good and kind and brave" and there is reason to believe he 
could made something of his life. But even if we could suppose that 
it would not have been so, even if we could know that his life would 
have ended up something like Frank's, miserable, uneventful for the 
most part and lonely, even then it would be tragic because, you see, 
* he never knew*. What makes Cedric's death so much more lamentable 
in my mind than Frank's (although every death is sad) was not how he 
died or why or at what age, but that he died not knowing, not knowing 
the world, himself or what he could make of himself.


As for the Diggorys, I feel for sorry for them as well. And it 
doesn't make it any easier for me that Amos could sometimes be a tad 
obnoxious. They lost a son and that is terrible. But Cedric lost 
Life. And that is everything.


Charis Julia, now rather worked up and teary. 
 





From ftah3 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 20 17:52:58 2002
From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:52:58 -0000
Subject: The character I pity the most
In-Reply-To: <a4u47l+ttip@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a50npq+s9i1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35504

Hmm, I guess I don't pity any of the dead.  To the dead, the past and 
suffering carries no weight.  I say this even in light of the ghosts, 
because to this point I don't feel that the ghosts have been shown to 
be much more than a shadow/parody of their living selves; they are 
interesting, amusing, active, but not...hmm, how do I put it?  They 
can't be traumatized.  It seems.  And they seem to be overall rather 
acclimated to the unliving state.  Not really pitiable.  And the non-
ghost dead even less so.  I guess, I feel they don't *need* pity, 
what with 
being dead and all....

At any rate.  I suppose that of the living I feel the most pity for 
Harry.  The past continues to weigh on him, he has recent traumas to 
deal with, and can only look forward to more danger, disruption, 
uncertainty, suffering. He's haunted, hunted, can't catch a break. 
Poor kid.

Mahoney
melancholy baby




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Wed Feb 20 18:02:12 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:02:12 -0000
Subject: The character I pity the most
In-Reply-To: <a50led+6k4o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a50ob4+taja@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35505

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "charisjulia" <pollux46 at h...> wrote:

Devin wrote:
> > >I think I can safely say that the character I 
> > > really feel sorry for is Frank Bryce. <<< 

And I added:
> > I don't feel so bad for Cedric, because although he died young,  
> > he seemed to have had a happy life up until that point.  
> > I think an unhappy life is worse than an early death.<<

To which Charisjulia replied:
> at least Frank * had* a life. Cedric was robbed of 
> his far too early on. ... Cedric lost 
> Life. And that is everything.<

Well, this is an opinion question, so of course there is no one right 
answer.  But, it does bring up some points about the Potterverse.  
It's clear that the Potterverse has an afterlife, since we see 
ghosts.  So, perhaps Cedric is still "alive" somewhere.  It's true 
that most of the ghosts we see appear unhappy (the Fat Friar is an 
exception), but that may just mean that all the happy spirits are off 
playing Quidditch or something, rather than moping in a bathroom or 
trying to get into the Headless Hunt.  So, I like to think Cedric is 
off somewhere doing something pleasant. 

Even without an afterlife, though, I still think some experiences are 
so awful that one would be better off dead.  I think about this 
whenever the topic of Azkaban comes up.  It seems to me that throwing 
people in Azkaban for life is far crueler than executing them.  
Perhaps Dumbledore agrees, and that is one reason why he's so opposed 
to the dementors?  I was very surprised when Peter was *happy* that 
Harry planned to send him to Azkaban, rather than let Sirius and 
Remus kill him.  If it were me, I'd be saying "Please!  Kill me now!  
Anything other than the dementors!"  Of course, perhaps Peter was 
hoping to escape, which in fact he later did. 

-- Judy






From catalyna_99 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 20 16:42:31 2002
From: catalyna_99 at yahoo.com (catalyna_99)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:42:31 -0000
Subject: Help - Need Quotes!
In-Reply-To: <a4v3f1+qur1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a50jln+knaj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35506

Dinah asked: 
> > I'm looking for 3 quotes, but simply cannot find them. I thumped 
> > through PS several times and really start to feel like a dork.
> > 
> > 1. Ron's comment about Dean's West Ham poster - he says something 
> > like "Mad!" or so...
> 
In the American paperback, on page 144.. towards the middle mentions 
that Ron had an argument with Dean Thomas about soccer.  It's here 
where Harry catches Ron prodding Dean's poster of West Ham soccer 
team trying to get the players to move.  No quotes however from 
anyone.

I don't think Voldemort's anti-muggle reasons come to focus until COS 
though. 

Cat






From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu  Wed Feb 20 18:12:27 2002
From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:12:27 -0000
Subject: Parenting across cultures; Draco and Lucius
In-Reply-To: <003501c1b9b5$312f7f20$3736c2cb@price>
Message-ID: <a50oub+ovq2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35507

Tabouli wrote:
> Ooo dear, ooo dear, let me rephrase (cross-cultural trainers have
been sued for less).  What we have here is a difference in
communication style.  <snip>  Hence there is comparatively little
stigma attached to using phrases like "express his love in a
meaningful way".
>

LOL. It's amazing how simple English isn't. I was trying to *avoid*
psychobabble, meaning "express" and "meaningful" in their literal
sense. I'm too used to being taken literally here, no matter what I
say, and then you go and *interpret* based on other posts and my
nationality? :^D Jeez, just change the rules, why don'cha?

And you're right: the type of parenting style we are talking about
here, with the "negotiation-based"--I love that term, it's so
accurate--reasoning, is just so prevalent as to be sickening to me.
There are certain things you can talk with a child about, and certain
things you don't. (Like when the kid is about to get himself killed is
not the time to sit down and try to have a discussion.) More on that
later. First, clearing up the confusion.

As far as culture, you said it is "about" culture, and I see what you
mean. I think we're suffering from a semantic difference here: first,
what we mean by "it's about" seems to be different; and second, what
we mean by "culture" is different.

When I said "it's not about culture," I meant that my cultural
background/upbringing was irrelevant to Lucius's actions
toward/regarding his son. It doesn't matter (to me) whether I'm
American, female, 30, pagan, bisexual, divorced, or any other factor
when I read the books. What matters is the facts and the connectivity
of those facts within the fabric of the culture of the Book.

You meant (I think) that one's culture inextricably colours one's
interpretations of any given event or chain of events in anything one
reads/watches/hears. And yes, on a personal level, you're right.

But I think I'm right too. I'm in the business of understanding
characters. I'm an actor. That's my job. To get inside a character's
head, one MUST set aside any cultural differences or backgrounds that
don't apply to the character. Lucius isn't any of the things I
am--except that I was once married, and he was once 30, but I've never
been a rich, influential, 40-something English aristocratic wizard and
parent. So *my* cultural backdrop is irrelevant--it must be discarded
in favour of Lucius's in order to shed any light on the nature of his
relationship with his son.

Now, it can be argued that *some* of the psychology applies regardless
of culture, as well. Writing is fundamentally about relationships, and
this story, it seems to me, resonates a lot on the theme of fathers
and sons. So understanding some fundamentals that really do (IMO)
cross cultural boundaries can be helpful. Regardless of one's culture,
do not all people desire to be loved by their parents? The difference
is where, when, and how that love is expressed. For some, the need for
love is satisfied by knowing that one's parents pushed them to excel;
for others, it is satisfied with material reward; still others need
the constant expression of affection or self-esteem building. Yes,
culture plays a vital role in shaping the cues that signal to a child,
"See? My father loves me."

That's why I also said that if you asked either of them, they would
each answer "Yes. Of course we love each other." Assuming they'd even
want to answer. ;^) But there's a vast difference between accepting
the cultural clue (My father bought me a broom; therefore, he loves
me. My father pushes me to excel, therefore, he loves me. My father
had that hippogriff destroyed; therefore, he loves me, etc.), and
believing it at the most basic level. And it's in that disconnect,
that dichotomy between superficial truth and emotional truth, that
relationships take form.

I was actually talking about pop psychology with my friend the other
night, on the subject of children especially. I noted that some of the
worst parents I've ever known have been--and apologies to those
listies who are--psychologists. Joel pointed out that in his
experience, many people who use psychological theory with children
seem to assume that every child is really a little adult deep down
inside, and if one can simply "reach" that adult, the child can be
reasoned with and will respond to that appeal to reason.

The problem as I see it is that really, they have it 180 degrees
wrong. It's not every child who is really a pint-sized adult, but
every adult who is really just a very tall child. As adults, we agree
to play with one another by a set of specific conventions--cultures,
if you will--that dictate our interactions. It is the overlaying of
those cultural conventions that complicates relationships and adds
complexity.

Lucius's reaction to the Buckbeak incident puts me in mind greatly of
something that happened while I was in high school. At a dance one
year, a number of kids smuggled in a fifth of bourbon, drank it among
about 4 of them, and decided to leave campus to go get some fast food.
They were so drunk they puked all over the restaurant. The manager
found out they had come from the dance, called the school, and some of
the chaperones/teachers left the dance to collect the kids and call
their parents. One girl's parents *refused* to accept that their
daughter would be involved in such a thing. Despite the fact that she
still had the bottle, she was identified both by people who saw her
leave and by staff at the restaurant, and she had a history of
instigating these kinds of infractions, her parents insisted that she
could not have been responsible for, much less involved in, any of the
occurrences.

By contrast, I was a pretty good kid. I wasn't without my moments, but
basically, I never really gave my folks much cause for worry. But I
think part of that was because my parents were more than willing to
believe their little angel could be quite the troublemaker when she
wanted to be. So if my mother got a call for some reason, her first
reaction was usually, "Uh-oh. What did she do?" They were pretty clued
in to things, on the whole, and they didn't put up with any--I'll use
the word again, just for you, Tabouli--bullhockey.

I have to agree completely with Meg, when she says that she knows
Draco's type. I do, too. I went to school with a number of Dracos.
There were even some who came from pretty old--for American--wealth,
to whom that concept of "the good of the family" rationale was not at
all foreign. But the tendency of their parents to simply not even pay
the slightest mind to their children's development was all too
evident. It's not just leaving them to someone else--they have to be
willing to back up that other person's methods if they want to recuse
their own responsibility. When the child hears "no" from a source they
perceive to be less authoritative than their own parent, who says,
"Well, okay," or worse, "I'll sue the school," how can the child learn
to respect any authority but his own?

Also, as Meg says, in Draco's case, any attention is good attention.
But there can still be a disconnect between what he knows is "right"
culturally--back to those clues he can look to to "prove" that he was
loved--and what he needs on a more elemental level. Lucius, who
condones at least some of the behaviour Draco displays--because he
also indulges in pettiness, teasing, prejudice, and worse--reinforces
the model that conduct doesn't matter as much as breeding.

I had a point in here somewhere, I swear. Ah yes: Lucius takes the
right "actions" to show Draco--by the cultural clues--that he cares
about his son. Yet he mixes those actions with really poor examples of
how to behave--and I think, no little amount of disdain. It's a
paradox that Draco can't fail to miss, no matter how he chooses to
suppress it in favour of believing the surface input--the material
rewards, the reminders to be a Malfoy, the combination of defending
him while attacking the creature who harmed him.

So for me, the clearest path to Draco redemption lies in circumstances
that would reveal to him, bring home to him, the size of the gulf
between what he *believes* to be his relationship with his father and
what it actually is. I also think he needs to understand what it is to
be someone else's tool, to be betrayed, to be hurt, and that hasn't
happened yet. I still think it might, though, in a way that doesn't
require his story to take center stage, but in a way that implies his
confusion and his search for the right course to take.

Whew. I think I'm all set for now.

Gwen (who will never really say to any 18-month old, "Now, give mommy
the choking hazard, please" as if it was really going to work, but who
makes a fantastic Aunt)




From Edblanning at aol.com  Wed Feb 20 18:15:10 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:15:10 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mrs. Norris and the Map (Animals and Crowds)
Message-ID: <a7.1beae36d.29a541ae@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35508

In a message dated 19/02/02 17:27:03 GMT Standard Time, finwitch at yahoo.com 
writes:


> The map automatically 
> shows those who aren't trying to hide themselves. It might, however, 
> require a password to show "people under invisibility cloak/using 
> polyjuice potion" - and yet other Password to show animagi. So Lupin 
> *could* see Peter in rat form on it, but twins or Snape could not. 
> And the map will show the animagi only to the one who says it.
> 
IIRC, Lupin saw Peter on the map,because he was still in the grounds, but by 
the time Snape saw the map, Sirius had already dragged him and Ron off 
Hogwarts territory so he would not have shown up to anyone.

I wonder how much the twins actually used the map , once they knew all the 
passageways etc: they were happy to give it to Harry, so they didn't seem to 
be depending on it to show them *who* was around.
Likewise, Harry shows a lamentable lack of interest in the map's potential 
until GoF.
According to the Lexicon, Harry received the map on Dec.18. Scabbers 
disappeared on Feb. 3. and Harry uses the map for his next Hogsmeade trip on 
Feb.18.
IIRC, there is no mention of him giving the map so much as a thought between 
the two Hogsmeade trips. At that stage, Harry seemed to be using the map 
solely to aid his trips to Hogsmeade. After Snape caught him, the map was no 
longer in his possession: Lupin had it. So HRH just weren't *looking* at the 
map when Peter/Scabbers should have shown up. Lupin potentially should have 
seen him at Hagrid's, but unless he was spying on Hagrid via the map, there 
was no reason for him to spot him in. 

Eloise (who suspects that the truth is that JKR didn't think this one out 
properly)





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




From moongirlk at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 20 18:19:16 2002
From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:19:16 -0000
Subject: The character I pity the most
In-Reply-To: <a4u74h+efa0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a50pb4+edau@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35509

> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uilnslcoap" <devin.smither at y...> wrote:
> > I just started rereading GoF today (actually, I'm reading the 
British 
> > version for the first time).  I've reread the first three books 
> > (British versions), and I think I can safely say that the 
character I 
> > really feel sorry for is Frank Bryce.  <snip>> > Does anyone else 
see the tremendous pathos here?  

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "abigailnus" <abigailnus at y...> wrote:
> 
> I don't think you're alone in feeling sorry for Frank Bryce.  I 
guess he's just one more of those good people who died 
> because they had the misfortune of crossing paths with Voldemort.  
Although you're right in saying the the real 
> tragedy is how Voldemort destroyed his life and doesn't even know 
about it.  

I totally agree - I wanted to mention Frank Bryce as my favorite non-
wizard character in that thread, but for some reason his last name 
wouldn't come to me - every time I thought Frank, Longbottom got in 
the way of remembering Bryce and I haven't had time to look it up.  
His story broke my heart.  It's so real - there are so many people in 
this world who live lonely misunderstood lives.  I think I almost 
felt sorry for young Tom Riddle at moments until I read about poor 
Frank, still working, plodding along through life, still brave and 
strong of will even after all he's been through because of Riddle.  
There's a definite nobility to pressing on through life when you 
*know* you're not in for much in the way of happiness or 
satisfaction.  When Voldemort just snuffed him out after all of that, 
I *did* shed a few tears, mostly at the thought that maybe nobody 
else would.  Yes, I'm a sentimental fool.  

kimberly
ready to erect a monument to the Cedrics and Franks of the Potter 
world




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Wed Feb 20 19:10:31 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 19:10:31 -0000
Subject: The character I pity the most is.... Harry?? / Sociopathy
In-Reply-To: <a50npq+s9i1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a50sb7+uev4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35510

Mahoney said:
> To the dead, the past and suffering carries no weight.  I say this 
> even in light of the ghosts, because to this point I don't feel 
> that the ghosts have been shown to be much more than a 
> shadow/parody of their living selves; they are interesting, 
> amusing, active, but not...hmm, how do I put it?  They can't be
> traumatized<

Interesting.  I haven't viewed the ghosts this way.  In fact, I feel 
very sorry for Myrtle.  A miserable short life, followed by a 
miserable long afterlife!  However, there is also the fact that 
Myrtle just isn't very nice, which limits how sorry I feel for her.  
I do think some Hogwarts teacher should try to lay her spirit to rest 
somehow; she's just a child and shouldn't be left to suffer.  But, I 
suspect she has a role to play in the future books.  She's there for 
some literary purpose.

Mahoney continued:
> At any rate.  I suppose that of the living I feel the most pity for 
> Harry.  The past continues to weigh on him, he has recent traumas 
> to deal with, and can only look forward to more danger, disruption, 
> uncertainty, suffering. He's haunted, hunted, can't 
> catch a break. Poor kid.<

I've often had similar thoughts.  Poor Harry, mistreated by the 
Dursleys, suspected of opening the Chamber of Secrets, forced to 
relive his parents' murder in PoA, schoolmates resenting him in GoF, 
etc etc etc.  Can't JKR cut him a break?  But, I guess Saving the 
World has a high price.  And, the plot requires him to have problems 
to overcome. 

Kimberly said:
> I think I almost felt sorry for young Tom Riddle at moments until I 
> read about poor Frank, still working, plodding along through life, 
> still brave and strong of will even after all he's been through
> because of Riddle. There's a definite nobility to pressing on 
> through life when you *know* you're not in for much in the way of
> happiness or satisfaction.<

Kimberly, I loved that last line, about nobility!

I would *definitely* feel sorry for Tom Riddle, if I didn't know 
about the evil he was doing at Hogwarts, and the even greater evil he 
did later in life.  

By the way, there was a discussion a day or two ago about sociopaths, 
and I felt that as a psychologist, I should weigh in on this topic.  
Tom Riddle is a classic sociopath -- someone who is able to seem 
nice, who can charm others, but underneath has no conscience 
whatsoever.  (Lucius also seems quite sociopathic.)  Most current 
theories say that sociopaths are born, not made.  That is, no matter 
how horrible a person's circumstances, he (or less often, she) will 
not become a sociopath unless his or her personality tended that way 
in the first place.  (Of course horrible experiences can cause all 
sorts of other pathologies, including some that are harmful to 
others, but the constellation of symtoms is different from 
sociopathy.) So, I'd say Riddle's behavior, even before he became 
Voldemort, can't be justified by anything that happened to him. 

Sociopaths tend to be impulsive and fearless, as well as charming.  I 
thnk one of the reasons I respond badly to Sirius is that his 
personality has many characteristics typical of sociopaths.  Now, I 
am *not* saying that Sirius *is* a sociopath -- he obviously feels 
remorse, probably excessive remorse, over the Potter's deaths, and 
sociopaths don't feel remorse.  But the combination of impulsive - 
fearless - charming sets off all sorts of alarms in my head.  It's 
led me to interpret Sirius in a certain way, which is perhaps not the 
way JKR intended. 

-- Judy 




From nicholson_el at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 20 19:50:13 2002
From: nicholson_el at hotmail.com (sothoii)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 19:50:13 -0000
Subject: Mrs. Norris and the Map
In-Reply-To: <F61tQvAauNjVuMhvqgS000001b6@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a50ull+qovq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35511

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jake Storm" <that1guy_hp at h...> wrote:
> I know that it's not an original theory, but one that has made sense 
to me 
> is that the MM only provides names based on people known to the 
viewer. That 
> would explain many things: why HRH never saw "Peter Pettigrew" 
anywhere on 
> the map, why they always see Mrs. Norris as "Mrs. Norris" no matter 
what her 
> real name might be, or her real form.
> 
> Does that make any sense?
> 

It does.  However there are other discrepencies that also need to be 
explained.  Barty Crouch, for one.  Perhaps this is truly a magical 
map of Hogwarts.  When Harry first uses it, the map shows Harry 
touching his wand to the statue, and saying 'Disendium' in a speech 
bubble.  This would imply that the map reacts to the wishes of the 
user.  That being the case, why wouldn't it show a person by the name 
the observer knows them by?  Scabbers, instead of Peter.  However, 
Lupin states that the map is not fooled by invisibility cloaks, so 
perhaps polyjuice falls into the same category, changing the outward 
appearance, but the map recognizes the inner and assigns that dot a 
name the user will recognise.

As this is a magical map, presumably it has zooming and screening 
features, so the user only sees the areas he wants and the people 
within those areas.  Unfortunatly the map does not seem to have a 
self-updating feature.  Fred and George point to one of the tunnels 
and say that it is compleatly blocked off, while the map shows it as 
accessible.

My only question is how has the map now?  Dumbledore?  Harry?  Moody? 
 Perhaps Moody burned it thinking it was just a piece of old 
parchment.  I hope not.

Sothoii





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 20 20:20:59 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:20:59 -0000
Subject: Marauders learning animagi - teachers?
In-Reply-To: <a50d5q+80vn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a510fb+msl2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35512

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Yoris" <msn.tsf at h...> wrote:
> 
> I don't think they knew, I think they just got lucky it turned out
> that way.  If Peter had become a large animal, they would've just 
had
> to work around it.  One of the Marauders would've had to approach 
the
> Willow in human form and push the button with a stick before
> transforming (we know it can be done, since Snape and Pomfrey both 
did
> it).

Yes, I agree.
 
> When you think about it, there are all sorts of risks associated 
with
> becoming an animagus?  What if you turn into fish?  Better keep a 
tub
> full of water handy when you're practicing.  Or you could become an
> elephant and crash through the floor.  No wonder the MoM regulates 
it.

Hmm... Risks, yes - like being seen by Muggle when transforming...

> The Marauders got lucky that all of them turned into animals that 
are
> normally found in England, so it was not too weird if someone saw
> them.  It would've been awkward if one of them turned out to be a
> kangaroo or a polar bear.
 
Yes- Noble Stag, Loyal Dog related to name, and Rat who'd 'leave the 
sinking ship' ... Personality/mythology/name holds some validity.

One risk is no doubt that you don't transform well enough and gain 
trouble  breathing or other lethal thing. Or something...
While others were learning animagi, RL was learning the antispell(he 
used it to force Peter into human-form along with Sirius). Otherwise 
he'd felt left out.

Supposedly the Animagi-books are in restricted section (as it requires 
registration) in Hogwarts Library. They must have begun during 4th 
year if not earlier. I think Lupin's parents were animagi and agreed 
to teach the group so that they didn't have to do it alone. (AND gave 
them the books - so that they don't need to break rules for them...)

> I suppose, like the Marauders, she just crossed her fingers and 
hoped
> for the best, and got lucky.
> 
> 
> > So how did Rita Skeeter, in my opinion a witch with
> > below average magic capability;s manage to become an animaga 
without
> help?
> 
> I don't remember the book giving any indication of Rita's magical
> ability.  Just because someone is obnoxious and unethical doesn't 
mean
> she can't be a powerful witch.  Or maybe she just has a freakish
> talent in one field (transformation), but is no good at other forms 
of
> magic?
 
Her animagi ability shows clearly she was good in transfiguration. 
Possibly with other spells, too (did she make that Quill or buy it?)




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Wed Feb 20 20:38:10 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:38:10 -0000
Subject: Marauders learning animagi - teachers?
In-Reply-To: <a510fb+msl2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a511fi+saun@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35513

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

> One risk is no doubt that you don't transform well enough and gain 
> trouble  breathing or other lethal thing. Or something...
> While others were learning animagi, RL was learning the antispell(he 
> used it to force Peter into human-form along with Sirius). Otherwise 
> he'd felt left out.

I suspect all the Marauders would've learned the antispell as a safety
precaution, so that if one of them did turn into fish or something,
the others could turn him back.  

> 
> Supposedly the Animagi-books are in restricted section (as it
requires 
> registration) in Hogwarts Library. They must have begun during 4th 
> year if not earlier. I think Lupin's parents were animagi and agreed 
> to teach the group so that they didn't have to do it alone. (AND
gave 
> them the books - so that they don't need to break rules for them...)

I don't think any of the Marauders would've had much problem with
breaking rules.  Besides, they were already breaking a much bigger
rule by becoming unregistered animagi in the first place.  Compared to
that, poking around in the Restricted Section is peanuts.

Besides, we're talking about a bunch of adolescent boys taking up
animagic in order to have exciting secret adventures together. 
There's no way they would've involved anybody's *parents* in the
undertaking.  That would get grown-up cooties all over it and take all
the fun out. <G>

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From lrcjestes at earthlink.net  Wed Feb 20 20:43:44 2002
From: lrcjestes at earthlink.net (siriusgeologist)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:43:44 -0000
Subject: Animagi: can they chose what they will become?/How did Rita Skeeters become an Animaga?
In-Reply-To: <a50d5q+80vn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a511q0+ir81@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35514

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> 
> I don't think they knew, I think they just got lucky it turned out
> that way.  If Peter had become a large animal, they would've just 
had
> to work around it.  One of the Marauders would've had to approach 
the
> Willow in human form and push the button with a stick before
> transforming (we know it can be done, since Snape and Pomfrey both 
did
> it).
> 

This question reminded me of a question I've always had about james 
as a stag in the tunnel itself.  Aren't stags on the large size?  At 
least the size of a horse.  Then add the antlers.  In PoA wasn't the 
tunnel beneath the womping willow described as cramped...requiring 
them to stoop slightly.  How the heck would James and his antlers fit 
in the tunnel?  And wouldn't it have been easier for him to negotiate 
the tunnel in human form.

For all you old timers, this was one of my very first questions to 
this list...nearly 2 years ago, when there were but a couple of 
hundred messages (getting misty eyed reminiscing...sigh)

Carole 







From karen at infobreak.net  Wed Feb 20 20:45:45 2002
From: karen at infobreak.net (sirius_kase)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:45:45 -0000
Subject: Mrs. Norris and the Map
In-Reply-To: <a4t3ja+1td6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a511tp+np9o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35515

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "abigailnus" <abigailnus at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jake Storm" <that1guy_hp at h...> 
wrote:
> > I know that it's not an original theory, but one that has made 
sense to me 
> > is that the MM only provides names based on people known 
to the viewer. That 
> > would explain many things: why HRH never saw "Peter 
Pettigrew" anywhere on 
> > the map, why they always see Mrs. Norris as "Mrs. Norris" no 
matter what her 
> > real name might be, or her real form.
> > 
> > Does that make any sense?
> 
> I'm afraid not, because if that were true than Harry wouldn't 
have seen Crouch Jr.  on the map while he was disguised 
> as Moody and searching Snape's office.  If I recall correctly, 
Harry doesn't even find out about Crouch Jr.'s existence 
> until much later, when he goes to see Sirius in his cave.
> 
> Abigail

And there is another theory that fixes that problem.  Crouch may 
not be using polyjuice at the time.  It is a very quick acting potion 
so there is no need for him to use it when he isn't expecting to be 
seen.  He may even be using his invisibility cloak while in 
Snapes office.




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 20 20:53:26 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:53:26 -0000
Subject: Peter's wand and the Evil Fudge ( was; S'mores (some-mores) / Draco and Lucius
In-Reply-To: <130.99dd79b.29a39b6e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a512c7+o24i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35516

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:

> In fact the ownership is not so much of a problem. All they needed 
was that 
> Sirius was apparently in posession of the guilty wand, whether it 
was his or 
> not. Just makes the crime worse, doesn't it, blasting poor little 
Peter to 
> smithereens *with his own wand*.
> I think we have to remember the atmosphere of the time. This was 
war. A man 
> was standing there, apparently admitting that he had committed the 
most 
> heinous of crimes.

Yes - it doesn't have to be his - it doesn't matter. And I can't help 
thinking Sirius forgot his wand with the motor-cycle he gave Hagrid! 
Otherwise he could have done something while PP was cutting his finger 
and probably would have. And if my idea of Sirius' wand being 
"missing" - or taken as "evidence". But, anyway, PP would have run to 
Voldemort to escape Sirius/catchers, findes Voldy reduced. He might 
well take the wand (which will join him in transformation so it can 
not be found until PP goes to him).

> No-one, not even the fair-minded Dumbledore seems 
to have 
> objected to imprisonment without trial. The niceties didn't matter. 
We had an 
> admission, we had a weapon. That was enough.

Even if AD objected, it might not have worked. He would be demanding 
Fair Trial in principle (if we don't, are we any better than they 
were?). Presumed innocent until proven guilty and to give Fair Trial 
for the whole truth to be revealed - Not easy at that time, but it is 
*right*. The speech - war was coming, hard times would follow, he 
believes he'll die before it's over. I shall wait for AD's beginning 
of the year - speech in Book#5 with interest.
 
>it was only Sirius' word that 
he wasn't 
> using it.

True. Which is why he - poor thing.
 
And I hope Sirius forgot his wand - that way he can get one!




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 20 21:36:03 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:36:03 -0000
Subject: Christmases & Birthdays
In-Reply-To: <a4v6t6+nsf2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a514s3+sv6m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35517

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tanie_05" <tanie_05 at h...> wrote:
> OK. Thanks. Now I feel A LOT better. (Trust me. It was *really* 
> bothering me.) :) 
> 
> -Kyrstyne(who can now breathe from relief, SIGH)

And - I forgot the website, but JR said in an interview that Harry 
*does* buy birthday-gifts (and christmas-gifts) for his friends.

As to why none of these are mentioned - it's not meaningful. Some 
details to create atmosphere and give the feeling of being there, or 
to introduce new objects(mainly Harry's birthday or christmas-gifts) 
etc. but mention of Ron's or Hermione's birthday doesn't add anything 
- as yet.

We might see Ron getting extremely happy by gaining complete 
collection trough Harry's gift of chocolate frogs, then we might see 
cards: Lily Evans-Potter, James Harold Potter and Harry James Potter.

We might see Hermione getting a book granting them the means to get 
something.

Informative details... "We learn something medium about Lily" - trough 
Ron's collect-card?




From Edblanning at aol.com  Wed Feb 20 21:39:57 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:39:57 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Marauders learning animagi - teachers?
Message-ID: <3d.19999be1.29a571ad@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35518

In a message dated 20/02/02 20:26:37 GMT Standard Time, finwitch at yahoo.com 
writes:


> Supposedly the Animagi-books are in restricted section (as it requires 
> registration) in Hogwarts Library. They must have begun during 4th 
> year if not earlier. I think Lupin's parents were animagi and agreed 
> to teach the group so that they didn't have to do it alone. (AND gave 
> them the books - so that they don't need to break rules for them...)
> 
> 

But just why wouldn't they break rules? Isn't that the sort of thing those 
renowned troublemakers would revel in doing?
I assume thay used James'  Invisibility Cloak to raid the library, as Harry 
tried to do.

 Eloise


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




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Wed Feb 20 21:53:51 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 08:53:51 +1100
Subject: Fw: Parenting across cultures
Message-ID: <006c01c1ba59$65e2c2a0$2f50dccb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35519

[Note: I cleared this post with the Mods before sending it, as I was aware that it was totally OT, but wanted to respond to Jo Ellen's comments on-list.  Any further responses on this thread should go to OT-Chatter]



Just read Jo Ellen's response to my amendment to the "Parenting Across Cultures" post, to which I've responded off-list.  I'll restrain myself to an on-list paraphrase of that post here (hopefully not sounding too abrupt in the process...)

1. My first paragraph was *comparative*, referring to averages.  On average, people in the US are more emotionally expressive than Australians.  I didn't mean there were no expressive Aussies or repressed Americans by any means.  I would, however, venture that the typical Australian eyeroll threshold is one of the, if not the, lowest in the world!

2.  I am well, well aware that most Americans can't afford therapy.  All the same, don't Oprah, soapies, movies, etc. still expose all Americans who can afford a televison to the sort of language I mentioned, to some degree?

3. On the subject of "great leaps in judging US culture", my comments were (a) referring to a cultural *ideal*, which is NOT the same thing as the cultural *norm* or the *majority*.  It's not at all uncommon for approximating the cultural ideal to be the domain of the privileged.  Also (b) referring to individualist cultures in general, not the US in particular.

(I live in Australia, hence I have first hand experience of an individualist culture and parenting styles therein.  And have worked for 10 years with people *not* raised in individualist cultures who come to Australia and struggle with the level of independence expected, the need to be assertive, the very concept of "rights", etc.etc.  To some degree, I'm one of them)

4. I'm not actually criticising those who reject "democratic" parenting!  I've been told repeatedly by RL people that parents inevitably discover they have to be more authoritarian than they intended as a starry eyed naive childless person.  No doubt I will too, though I intend to aim at a more democratic style than I received if I have any children.  I'm not totally ignorant on the subject of rearing children - my last partner had two, for a start, and my friends who are parents get sick of my perpetual analytical questioning and observation on the subject of parenting...

5. I'm not basing my comments on watching a few TV programs and reading books on US childrearing... I'm basing them on cross-cultural theories and research (most of which is *written* by Americans!).

Anyway, enough of this on the main list... if anyone wants to discuss this topic further, or delve into my qualifications or explanations for my comments, you're welcome to send them to OT-Chatter or to me personally off-list!

Tabouli (steeling herself)


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




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 20 21:53:58 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:53:58 -0000
Subject: Marauders learning animagi - teachers?
In-Reply-To: <3d.19999be1.29a571ad@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a515tm+o0sl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35520

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:
> In a message dated 20/02/02 20:26:37 GMT Standard Time, 
finwitch at y... 
> writes:
> 
> 
> > Supposedly the Animagi-books are in restricted section (as it 
requires 
> > registration) in Hogwarts Library. They must have begun during 4th 
> > year if not earlier. I think Lupin's parents were animagi and 
agreed 
> > to teach the group so that they didn't have to do it alone. (AND 
gave 
> > them the books - so that they don't need to break rules for 
them...)
> > 
> > 
> 
> But just why wouldn't they break rules? Isn't that the sort of thing 
those 
> renowned troublemakers would revel in doing?
> I assume thay used James'  Invisibility Cloak to raid the library, 
as Harry 
> tried to do.

They might, but with screaming books... Lupin might have suggested the 
animagi training from his parents who no coubt would teach dear son's 
friends so they can be together... After all, their *prime* reason was 
for Lupin not to be alone - adventuring around was just a bonus. 
Naturally they'd let them believe they'd all be in Shrieking Shack.




From meboriqua at aol.com  Wed Feb 20 22:40:45 2002
From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 22:40:45 -0000
Subject: The character I pity the most is.... Harry?? / Sociopathy
In-Reply-To: <a50sb7+uev4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a518ld+cgf5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35521

Mahoney said:
> > At any rate.  I suppose that of the living I feel the most pity 
for Harry.  The past continues to weigh on him, he has recent traumas 
to deal with, and can only look forward to more danger, disruption, 
uncertainty, suffering. He's haunted, hunted, can't catch a break. 
Poor kid.<

Judy responded: 
> I've often had similar thoughts.  Poor Harry, mistreated by the 
> Dursleys, suspected of opening the Chamber of Secrets, forced to 
> relive his parents' murder in PoA, schoolmates resenting him in GoF, 
> etc etc etc.  Can't JKR cut him a break?  But, I guess Saving the 
> World has a high price.  And, the plot requires him to have problems 
> to overcome.> 

I completely understand what you are both saying, but I wouldn't 
categorize my feelings about Harry as pity.  I feel for him, certainly 
(and occasionally wish I was a cutie pie 14 year old witch who caught 
his eye in Potions class...) but I don't feel pity for him.  Harry to 
me is too strong to be pitied.  I admire him - he has overcome being 
raised by the dreadful Dursleys and is a polite, humble generally nice 
kid.  He is, for the most part, well liked by his peers (even envied 
at times by the likes of Draco) and the adults around him seem to work 
tirelessly to protect him.  Oh, and that strong thing I said earlier; 
Harry is *strong*.  He is emotionally able to deal with enormous 
pressure, the ever nagging death of his parents and his magical 
abilities, which, IMO, will most definitely rival Dumbledore's 
certainly by the end of book 7.

Yep, that's my Harry!

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




From moongirlk at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 20 23:18:32 2002
From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 23:18:32 -0000
Subject: The character I pity the most is.... Harry?? / Sociopathy
In-Reply-To: <a50sb7+uev4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a51as8+oqot@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35522

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:
> Mahoney continued:
> > At any rate.  I suppose that of the living I feel the most pity 
for 
> > Harry.  The past continues to weigh on him, he has recent traumas 
> > to deal with, and can only look forward to more danger, 
disruption, 
> > uncertainty, suffering. He's haunted, hunted, can't 
> > catch a break. Poor kid.<
> 
> I've often had similar thoughts.  Poor Harry, mistreated by the 
> Dursleys, suspected of opening the Chamber of Secrets, forced to 
> relive his parents' murder in PoA, schoolmates resenting him in 
GoF, 
> etc etc etc.  Can't JKR cut him a break?  <SNIP> 

I wish that too, on occasion, but then I remember that for the sake 
of the story, poor little Harry's got to take a lot of abuse at the 
hands of his creator.  I guess that's why I can accept all that's 
happened to him more easily than, say, Cedric or Frank, neither of 
whose problems were essential to the overall storyline.  
I have a slightly neurotic way of reading in which certain characters 
(mostly peripheral characters, and particularly underdogs) seem to me 
to be real people.  I don't mean that I think the characters in books 
are real and that the Dursleys live on Privet drive and I'm going to 
go shake my fist at them for their treatment of Harry, but that well-
crafted people with whole back-stories like Frank who have no 
substantial point in the plot of the fiction they're a part of must 
live somewhere, somehow.  I can't explain what I mean without either 
sounding crazy or overwhelmingly sentimental, so I'm going to stop 
now, but suffice it to say that if ever I could be convinced to read 
HP fanfic, it'd be for the life story of some minor character like 
Frank (Or Mundungus Fletcher - is there any Gus fic?).


I said:
> > I think I almost felt sorry for young Tom Riddle at moments until 
I 
> > read about poor Frank, still working, plodding along through 
life, 
> > still brave and strong of will even after all he's been through
> > because of Riddle. There's a definite nobility to pressing on 
> > through life when you *know* you're not in for much in the way of
> > happiness or satisfaction.<
> 
> Kimberly, I loved that last line, about nobility!

I do think it's noble; it shows a lot of strength of character.  More 
than I've got.  If I were in Frank's place I'd have just stopped 
getting out of bed eventually.  The strength to go on and fulfill 
obligations and work and fix meals for one every night and even just 
keep breathing would go out of me if I had to do it without a 
reasonable hope of some love or joy or... something pleasant to 
come.  People like Frank just impress me with their tenacity.  Either 
they're able to hold on to hope through it all or they're just made 
of stronger stuff than I am.  I don't know what it is, but Frank has 
my admiration, and I'll remember him to honor all the real Franks in 
the world.  
 
<snip stuff on Tom and sociopathic tendencies>
> Sociopaths tend to be impulsive and fearless, as well as charming.  
> I thnk one of the reasons I respond badly to Sirius is that his 
> personality has many characteristics typical of sociopaths.  Now, I 
> am *not* saying that Sirius *is* a sociopath -- he obviously feels 
> remorse, probably excessive remorse, over the Potter's deaths, and 
> sociopaths don't feel remorse.  But the combination of impulsive - 
> fearless - charming sets off all sorts of alarms in my head.  It's 
> led me to interpret Sirius in a certain way, which is perhaps not 
>the way JKR intended. 

That's interesting, because I am fine with Sirius.  I think that's 
because in canon I don't really think he *has* charmed anyone, 
particularly.  He doesn't seem too concerned with ingratiating 
himself - he's focused on the task at hand to the detriment of 
people's saftey, much less common courtesy, but I consider that 
Azkaban-induced tunnel vision mostly.  I do think he'd do well to 
apologize to Snape already, and I hope he proves to have less violent 
impulses the further he's removed from his time in prison, but that's 
about it.  Draco, on the other hand, I see as a little sociopath-in-
training.  He seems fascinated with death, has shown quite a talent 
for sucking-up (charming) when he wants to, and relishes hurting 
others.  I don't think he's un-redeemable, but I do think if 
something doesn't happen soon, he's got a good base for becoming 
completely cold-blooded.  I worry about Draco, but at the same time I 
almost think it'd be cool if he *wasn't* redeemed, because then in 
the end we could have the groundwork for the next big dark baddie, to 
remind everyone that even if *this* story is over, the struggle it 
represents never is.  

kimberly
sentimental about frank, but ready to throw cast poor little draco as 
the next heavy for literary purposes.




From CorGlacier7 at aol.com  Wed Feb 20 23:19:24 2002
From: CorGlacier7 at aol.com (hockeychu)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 23:19:24 -0000
Subject: Animagi: can they chose what they will become?/How did Rita Skeeters become an Animaga?
In-Reply-To: <004f01c1ba14$da927c70$9600000a@NEWPC>
Message-ID: <a51ats+dc7t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35523

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Yoris" <msn.tsf at h...> wrote:

> Further more this brings me to the question: How did Rita Skeeter 
became an
> Animaga?
>  I mean it took 3 of the most brilliant students hogwarts ever had 
(Remus,
> James and Sirius)

Never is it said they were the most brilliant students Hogwarts has 
ever produced.  Please do *not* succumb to overblowing things.  It's 
said they *were* intelligent, which is quite a genral 
description...half a class could be "intelligent".  That is all.

<working together for 3 years to become animagi...

My take on this is that Animagism is exceptionally powerful stuff.  I 
don't think you'd find ANYONE who could do it their second year.  I 
think most of the three years before it was done was spent finding 
access to the books necessary and more especially...gaining the 
necessary magical power and training!  A fully trained wizard would 
probably take a good sight less than 3 years to accomplish the feat, 
having the power necessary.

Joan





From nonewwitticisms at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 20 23:31:49 2002
From: nonewwitticisms at hotmail.com (nonewwitticisms)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 23:31:49 -0000
Subject: Mars is bright tonight.
Message-ID: <a51bl5+5u6p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35524

Specifically, what do you think the centaurs were saying?

Obviously, mars represents war, violence, and chaos--but did the 
centaurs know exactly what was going to happen?

Or did they just know that there was going to be bloodshed?

In other words, how excating do you think that the centaurs 
preditions are?

"Quirrell, acting for Voldemort, is drinking of a unicorn, and will 
kill harry potter"

vs.  

"Tonight there will be violence or bloodshed."





From emmbp at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 20 23:44:02 2002
From: emmbp at yahoo.com (emmbp at yahoo.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:44:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Harry Potter vs. Will Stanton
Message-ID: <20020220234402.12755.qmail@web13908.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35525

I have two series of Children's Fantasy that I
absolutly adore: Harry Potter (of Course) and The Dark
is Rising (by Susan Cooper)  As I sat musing last
night, I realized that there are some serious
parallels between the two series.  Let me explain:

Both series feature an English boy who discovers on
his 11th birthday that he has "paranormal" powers. 
Will Stanton of the Dark is Rising, discovers that he
is the last of the Old Ones, a group of magical people
that have been fighting the Dark since time started.

Harry Potter discovers that he is a wizard, and that
he has survived a terribly evil Wizard.

Each embarks on quests, finds friends and enemies, and
finds that Things Are Not What They Seem.  The
friendly seeming persons around them usually turn out
to be evil (ie Quirrel, Moody, etc).

Both are supported by friendly old men who are much
older than they seem:  Will Stanton by Merriman
Lyon(who is Merlin...)  Harry by Dumbledore (order of
Merlin)

Throughout the plots, each boy fails at times, and yet
they succeed at the end.

Has anyone else read The Dark is Rising?  Do you see
any more interesting parallels between the books?

Have a Wonderful Day
Brady

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com




From cindysphynx at home.com  Thu Feb 21 00:37:56 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 00:37:56 -0000
Subject: The Character In The Most Enviable Position Is . . . 
Message-ID: <a51fh4+ddl5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35526

This is the opposite of Devin's question about which characters we 
pity.  In other words, which character seems to have a very good lot 
in life?  Careful now, because your answer may reveal something about 
what you value.

I found this a hard question to answer, but I think I'll go with 
Hermione.  She's in a pretty comfy situation, after all.  She has two 
(loving?) parents, enough money so that it is not an issue, and a 
great deal of ability and confidence.  I still get the sense that she 
isn't all that popular among her peers, though.  But I'd say she has 
the fewest number of problems of all the HP characters, has endured 
the least hardship, and has the most potential to succeed post-
Hogwarts.  

Funny thing, though.  She's not my favorite character.  Not by a long 
shot.  But how could I honestly get away with saying that Lupin or 
Black is in an enviable position?

Cindy




From jenP_97 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 21 01:20:43 2002
From: jenP_97 at yahoo.com (jenp_97)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 01:20:43 -0000
Subject: The Character In The Most Enviable Position Is . . .
In-Reply-To: <a51fh4+ddl5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a51i1b+n0su@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35527

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> This is the opposite of Devin's question about which characters we 
> pity.  In other words, which character seems to have a very good lot 
> in life?  Careful now, because your answer may reveal something 
> about what you value.

<snip Cindy's pick of Hermione, and qualification that she's *still*
not her favorite character>

Well, while I agree with you about Hermione, your reasons seem to 
suggest that we could consider Dudley to be in an enviable position 
as well.  He's the product of loving (at least in HIS case) parents, 
he has what seems to be plenty of money... he's plenty confident... 
and *he* is popular with at least a big group of thugs.  Sure, he's 
got his problems.  I mean, he's fat.  He's got a freak cousin.  He had
to have a pig's tail removed.  But then again, Hermione had buck 
teeth, had to be changed back from being a cat, and has been petrified
by a basilisk.  ;)

Okay, okay.  I guess I should be serious, but looking back over those
arguments, maybe I _was_ being serious (if only I could be Sirius.  
No.  If only I could *have* Sirius...).  I mean, as far as we can 
tell, the Dursleys, apart from the few discussions that they may be
killed because Harry needs to realize how much they actually mean to
him, are in relatively little danger from Voldemort at this point. 
Sure, they're muggles... I understand that.  I have a feeling that 
they will be targeted at some point.  Same with Hermione's parents 
(and Hermione herself - which still makes her ties with Dudley without
taking into account her enviable attendance at Hogwarts).  Perhaps
they're a little more at risk because of their supposed protective
qualities surrounding Harry, but since Hermione hangs out with Harry
all the time, she's just as at risk.

I didn't mean this to be a comparison between D's and Hermione's
positions in life... I guess it was just a "stream of consciousness
(sp?)" post for me today.

Jen (coming out of lurkdom on the main list)





From abced99 at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 21 01:14:08 2002
From: abced99 at hotmail.com (abced99420)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 01:14:08 -0000
Subject: HP vs Will Stanton
Message-ID: <a51hl0+kggj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35528

Hi!
I've also made connections between the two sets of books. I suppose 
it's kind of inevitable on my part, as TDIR series was my number one 
favorite set of books growing up, and was what got me into the whole 
British mythology/fantasy genre (which consider HP to fall under). 

I think that both Cooper and JKR do a good job of picking and 
choosing elements from the great body of British and Celtic 
historical/mythological legends and stories. Both authors have a 
great way of creating new legends out of bits of folklore that are 
subconsciously familiar, making their new stories seem more "true" as 
a result of these elements, IMO. 

I also think that Will and Harry share the burden of having the role 
of "hero" or "chosen one" being thrust upon them, making them seem 
older than their years, although Will seems to deal with it much more 
cheerfully than Harry does. Besides this, though, I think that Harry 
and Will are very, very different, personality-wise. Will is a lot 
more well-adjusted and cocky than introspective, tormented (IMO :)) 
Harry. 

The connection that I noticed first between the two series led me to 
develop my pet HP theory, that Ron is a seventh son of a seventh son 
(too much space between Charlie and Percy). The Weasleys reminded me 
of the Stantons right off the bat. My old copies of TDIR are in 
storage, far, far away, so I'm relying on memory, here, but didn't 
Will have two much older brothers and a set of twins in his family? 
andcome to think of it, a studious brother also--played the flute, I 
think? hmm...

TDIR was a great series, and I'll always consider them *my* series 
but I think that JKR is doing a much better job already. I kinda wish 
I was a kid again, just so that they could be my formative 
literature. The big thing that ruined TDIR series for me was the cop-
out ending: "well, Drew kids, thanks for helping, but now we're going 
to erase your memories so it'll all just be a dream." I mean, come on!
I don't think JKR will do that to us. But what if she did?! End of 
book 7: Harry wakes up from a nightmare of battling a wizard when mum 
calls him down to breakfast, and panicked, feels his forehead, only 
to _feel no scar_? I _hate_ those kinds of endings. But I bet JKR 
will give us something a lot better.

cheers,
abced99





From tanie_05 at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 21 01:55:05 2002
From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 01:55:05 -0000
Subject: Gryffindor's Quidditch team
Message-ID: <a51k1p+ak0f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35529

OK, another thought. Been reading in some fan-fics and just had a 
thought: what's gonna happen to Gryffindor's Quidditch team? We've 
already lost the Captain & Seeker (Wood) due to graduation. Well, 
this is the rest of team's (except for Harry) last year at Hogwarts. 
There is no possible way that Harry (and possibly whoever the new 
Keeper is)could be the team after everyone else leaves. Hmmmm....food 
for thought.

-Kyrstyne




From theennead at attbi.com  Thu Feb 21 02:15:42 2002
From: theennead at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 02:15:42 -0000
Subject: A Credo For George
Message-ID: <a51l8f+6cmn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35530

A sort of meta-message this one, trying to clarify more precisely
the actual parameters of one of the many Snape backstory 
theories/movements/philosophies  floating around on this list.  
Because this is an attempt to clarify, there is much summary here, 
and not all that much that is new.  Those who were heartily sick of
this subject even before it arose, and who only became more heartily 
sick of it when it went through a spate of discussion a week or so 
ago, might wish to take this opportunity to flee now.

---------------------

Marina wrote:

> Woo-hoo! George slicks back his hair, wiggles into his tightest
> jeans, and practices batting his eyelashes in front of the mirror in
> preparation for meeting his very own post.

Oh, knock it off, George.  Honestly!  Sometimes I think that I liked 
you far better when you were a small furry creature soon to be killed 
through over-coddling.

<crosses to door, locks it firmly, then points to chair>

Now sit down and stop giving me those big eyes.  They don't work on 
me, so you may as well not bother.  You wanted a post, you're getting 
one, but until we're done here, you're going to sit right there and 
not interrupt me.  And I'm not unlocking that door until I've 
finished with you, so don't even *think* about squealing to Marina 
for help.  She can't come in until we're done here.  You got that?

<smiles thinly at George, who sinks into the chair, nodding slowly, 
his eyes very wide>

Good.  Now...

----------

A Credo For George


George, for those who don't yet know him, is Marina's name for her 
own set of beliefs about Snape's backstory.  He was formally 
introduced to the list in post 34762.

Or that's what he *was.*  Shortly thereafter, however, he became 
something more like a...a movement?  A position?  A land-locked 
ship?  A theory, at any rate, that othes might wish to espouse and to 
identify themselves with.

This became problematic, however, because George -- to put it 
bluntly -- is a slut.  Marina *did* try to warn us about this, but 
romantic fools that we are, we just didn't listen.  And so when 
George was spotted in the Catalytic Boutique, trying on Road-To-
Damascus-style ballgowns, or batting his eyelashes at James Potter, 
or even once caught locked in a *very* slow dance with Captain 
Tabouli on the deck of the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS, we all tried to ignore
it for as long as we could.  "He's young," we said.  "He'll grow out 
of it."  But in the end, he simply broke our hearts.

Now, it seems to me that the problem with George (other than the fact 
that he shares a name with a canon character, which is confusing) is 
that we don't know what's really a part of his *Credo,* so to speak, 
and what remains open to the conscience of the individual.  If we are 
to assume for the moment that George does have it in him to break 
free from Marina's embrace and become a position that others might 
choose to espouse, then we must ask: what are the primary 
characteristics of George?  If one were to declare oneself a 
Georgian, what would that necessitate?

The Good Ship LOLLIPOPS, for example, is so popular in part, I think, 
because it is so very inclusive.  If I'm understanding its manifesto 
correctly (and please do correct me, Tabouli, if I am wrong), so long 
as one believes that Snape Loved Lily, and that this hopeless passion 
accounts for at least *some* of his canonical behavior, then you are 
welcome to clamber aboard.  Beyond that, however, the specific 
details (Love of Lily accounts for Snape's behavior towards Harry, 
Love of Lily led Snape to join the DEs, Love of Lily led Snape to 
*leave* the DEs, Love of Lily led Snape to abandon a belief in the 
Pureblood ethos, Love of Lily left Snape with a phobia of hair-
washing, or what have you) are up to the conscience of the 
individual.  While there is a "hard-line" position -- and even a semi-
official timeline -- belief in these would seem to be optional.  The 
only real Credo is the 'core belief' that Love of Lily accounts for 
some of Snape's behavior.

So what it seems to me that George really needs, if he is ever to 
become a position, rather than merely a personification of Marina's 
beliefs (however these may change over time) is a *Credo.*  We need 
to know what the core rock-bottom Georgian position is, what it 
really *means* to declare oneself a Georgian.  We also need to know 
what unusual or slightly <cough> subversive beliefs George is willing 
to accomodate, and which he denounces as heresy.

(He also desperately needs an acronym.  But that's slightly beside 
the point.)

So what issues specifically does George address?

Well, from his introduction, it would seem that George is primarily 
concerned with two backstory questions: Why Did Snape Join the DEs In 
the First Place?, and Why Did He Then Turn?  Later attempts to 
clarify George's position by asking him questions about Lily, 
ambushes, timelines, and suchnot just muddied the waters, IMO, 
because these were all questions that really fell outside of
George's purview.

So I'd like, if I may, to catechize George on these two questions for 
a little while, to see if we can manage to clarify and distill his 
views and perhaps even emerge at the end of this process with A Credo 
For George.

------------------

Why Did Snape Join the Death Eaters In the First Place?


Marina's original introductory post seems to place a strong emphasis 
on the Prank as a catalytic agent for Snape's mistrust of the Light 
side and his subsequent belief that the Dark Was His Friend.

Marina (in George's introductory post):

> Now I believe that Snape originally joined the DEs not because he 
> had any conviction in their <ahem> ideals, but because they were the
> enemies of his enemies, and he thought they might treat him decently
> and not try to feed him to any werewolves....

Eloise, who would seem to share many of George's tendencies, expanded 
somewhat on this idea:

> It's not so much what the Marauders did that's the problem, as what 
> Dumbledore *didn't* do. I fancy he felt ever so let down by 
> the 'light' side, didn't find justice in the all-wise all-just 
> Dumbledore. . . . What's the point of allying yourself with 
> goodness if evil goes unpunished? Is there any difference between 
> the two sides? Perhaps not. 


Later, however, George seemed to turn away from Prank-as-catalyst, to 
take a more holistic view:

Marina: 

> As I've mentioned before, Snape was very young at the time, 
> probably just out of Hogwarts. He had a general idea of what the 
> DEs were up to, and thought he'd be okay with it. When you're an 
> nasty, unpopular teenager with a suspicious knowledge of Dark Magic 
> and a conviction that the people currently in charge are out to get 
> you, it's pretty easy to go around thinking you're evil and even to 
> get off on the concept (finding it glamorous and empowering, 
> maybe) -- until someone actually says, "Here, torture this baby," 
> and you suddenly find that maybe you're not as evil as you thought.

and (in a later post) Marina again:

> George says:
> Well, Snape is a Slytherin after all, and therefore ambitious. 
> Voldemort and Dumbledore were duking it out for control of the
> wizarding world. Snape wanted to be in on the score, not to sit on
> the sidelines. Sure, joining either team brought certain risks if 
> his side lost -- but it also brought the chance of enjoying the 
> spoils of victory if his side won. No risk, no reward -- and I've 
> already made my argument for Snape's bravery.


On the question of whether or not young Severus ever truly believed 
in the pureblood ethos espoused by the Death Eaters, George has 
wavered.  He initially answered in the negative, but when further 
catechized on this subject by Cindy, George gave the impression that 
he was willing to accept a great deal of differing opinion on this 
particular point:

Marina:

> It's possible that Snape believed it then, but if so then he must've
> dropped the belief somewhere along the way, since he shows no sign 
> of it now...."Purity of blood" may have been another one of those 
> things that sounded really good at the Death Eaters Sunday Brunch, 
> but proved a lot less attractive in bloody practice.

It would seem, then, that George takes no strong stance on the 
question of whether or not Snape ever adhered to the pureblood ethos.


So, if we were to try to distill George's position on Why Snape 
Joined the Death Eaters, we are left with...well, George is a bit 
vague, really.  He offers a number of suggestions: hostility towards 
the Marauders (and thus by extention towards House Gryffindor and all 
of their allies); disappointment in Dumbledore and disillusionment 
with the entire notion of justice; a desire for protection from his 
perceived enemies; raw ambition; the desire to be on the winning side 
of a dangerous political conflict; an adolescent conviction that Evil 
is cool and glamorous; possibly a short-lived belief in a one or 
two of the Death Eater ideals...

But it is really very difficult to tell precisely where George stands 
on any of these issues, which leads me to wonder if the question of 
Why Snape Joined the DEs In the First Place ought really be viewed as 
within George's purview at *all.*  It strikes me that while there 
might perhaps be beliefs on this subject that George would indeed 
consider "heretical," a wide range of opinion is nonetheless 
permitted when it comes to the answer to this question.

George?

<George remains silent>

That's okay, sweetheart.  We'll let Marina in the room in a bit, and 
maybe she can help us out on this one.

In the meantime, I suggest that there are at least a couple of 
parameters of belief that strike me as consistent with Georgianism 
overall.  George will have to let me know later, if I've got this 
wrong.


(1) Snape joined up willingly, with his eyes at least half-way open, 
and with no thought of betraying the DEs at the time.

I could swear that George actually said this at some point, but now I 
can't seem to find the citation.  But I'm fairly certain that none of 
the "he had no *idea* what they were really all about when he joined 
up with them, honest!" schools of thought on this matter, nor the "he 
always planned on spying for Dumbledore" theories would be 
permissable under Georgianism.
 

(2) There may have been one or more catalytic events which prompted
this action, but none of them were "Road To Damascus"-type catalysts 
(ie, sudden epiphanous realizations that cause a complete ideological 
about-face).  Whatever catalytic agency events like the Prank might 
have possessed, they nonetheless were serving to push Snape further 
down a road that he was already part-way *on,* rather than causing 
him to change direction suddenly mid-stride.

George has never stated this explicitly, but it seems strongly 
implied to me by his, uh, general demeanor and attitude.  It seems 
congruent with George's known beliefs.  But again, I'm not certain on 
this point, so Marina will have to let me know if I've read George 
correctly here.


Those two points are just about all that I can deduce about George's 
Credo when it comes to Snape's original decision to throw in his lot 
with the DEs, actually, and they do seem to me to allow for an 
enormous deal of variation in belief.  So now I find myself 
wondering: are there in fact stricter parameters than the ones 
I've outlined above?  And if not, then are there variations that *do* 
fall within those parameters that are nonetheless categorically 
rejected by George?  What are George's "heresies" here?


----------------------

So Why Did Snape Turn?


Now *this,* IMO, is George's *Real* Issue.  *This* is Where George 
starts to shine and to strut his stuff.  

In fact, I think that George might even work best if viewed as a 
philosophy that seeks to address *only* this question, while leaving 
even the question of Why Snape Joined In the First Place up to the 
conscience of the individual.  But that, of course, is not up to me 
to decide.

George's position here seems relatively clear.  George rejects
"catalytic theories" of Snape's conversion, holding firm to the 
notion that his disillusionment with the DEs was not a sudden 
epiphanous revelation, but rather, a gradual realization that
Voldemort and his followers were evil: their motives selfish, their 
means unjustified, their ends corrupt, and their assumptions just 
plain *wrong.*  

Marina, in George's introductory post:

> I think that the more time spent with the DEs, the more he became
> disenchanted with them. They were crappy excuses for human beings 
> (or whatever other kinds of beings they were); their agenda was 
> evil and destructive; whatever respect they may have given him 
> (assuming they gave him any -- maybe they didn't) wasn't worth it. 
> I don't think there was any one grand epiphany that made Snape 
> realize, "Hey, these guys are evil and must be opposed," I think it 
> was a gradual process that eventually reached a point where he had 
> to turn around and do something, and it's at that point that he 
> went to Dumbledore.

Furthermore, George would seem to favor a view of this realization 
that roots it firmly in the realms of the intellectual and the 
philosophical, rather than the emotional or the visceral.  George 
emphasizes the notion that Snape's defection was not one of emotion, 
but one of *principle.*

Marina:

> No, I think that somewhere down the line Snape came to genuinely 
> hate Voldy and everything the DEs stood for; and to hate them *on 
> principle*, not just emotionally. And Snape has generally been 
> shown as willing, and even determined, to put principle and duty 
> ahead of his emotions. 


The question of emotion, of course, becomes particularly relevant 
when it comes to examining George's relationship with LOLLIPOPS.  On 
the issue of whether Snape Loved Lily, Marina wrote:

> See, I have no idea whether or not Snape loved Lily... but I 
> definitely don't buy the idea that love of Lily turned him away 
> from the DE's. . . .If one is going to turn from the side of evil 
> to the side of good, then one must do it out of genuine moral 
> conviction, a sincere belief that evil is, well, *evil* and must be 
> fought. . . . 

and later, in response to a LOLLIPOPS defense of LOL as a motivating 
factor:

> That's certainly true, but if Lily-love is just one motivating 
> factor among many, then my instinct is to drop the romantic angle 
> and let all these other factors pull the weight.

So it would seem that one can indeed be a Georgian from the deck of 
the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS, so long as one does not ascribe to the 
notion that Love of Lily was an important motivating factor in 
Snape's decision to leave the DEs.  As this belief is in fact *not* 
required by LOLLIPOPS, dual adherence would seem to me to be, if not 
likely to be all that common, nonetheless still *possible* within the 
parameters of the two groups' respective tenets of belief.


So if we were to propose a Credo For George on this issue, then what 
might it look like?

I suggest that it might look something like this:

"I believe that Snape left the Death Eaters out of a philosophical 
conviction that their movement was evil.  His defection was a matter 
of moral principle."

"I reject the notion that there was any one sudden catalytic event 
which led to this change of heart.  Rather, I believe that it came 
about gradually, as a matter of observation, consideration, and a 
careful weighing of moral values."


Now, if this is really Core George, then I would be happy to declare 
myself a Georgian.  Sometimes, though, George seems to waver even on 
these most basic fundaments, even when this involves throwing 
overboard his own once-favored timeline of events.  Take this 
message, for example, in which George contemplates the possibility 
that Snape's life-debt to James Potter might have served as the
final straw pushing him from disillusionment into outright defection:

Marina:

> George is helpless to resist. He is smitten. He know maintains that
> Snape's gradual disillusionment with the DEs finally culminated in
> active resistance when Voldemort threatened James.

<Elkins casts the bed on which George is sitting a *very* severe look>

Oh, *honestly,* George!  And after all that time you spent arguing 
for a much earlier date for Snape's defection, too!  What got *into* 
you there?


At other times, George seems to venture far outside of his domain, 
offering his opinions on all manner of things that don't really seem 
to be any of his business (the "Even EWWWWWWWer" Theory, for example, 
which I personally absolutely adore, but which I don't really think 
has the slightest bit of bearing on the issues which George normally 
stands to address).


Most disturbing, however, is when George seems to falter on what I 
consider to be one of the most rock-bottom tenets of his own Credo: 
namely, Snape's disenchantment with the Death Eaters as a matter of 
moral principle.

Marina: 

> Oh, I don't think Snape was clueless. I think Snape knew,
> intellectually, exactly what the DEs were up to, and he thought it 
> was okay by him. But when faced with the visceral reality of 
> torture and murder, rather than just reading about it in Daily
> Propher headlines, he found that it wasn't as okay as he thought it 
> was.

Now, my problem with this is that to my mind, a visceral reaction 
isn't really a matter of moral principle at all.  It is merely a 
matter of squeamishness.  And aside from the fact that I am unable to 
believe for even a moment that Snape might be squeamish, I also find 
this idea disturbingly incompatible with everything that George 
ordinarily seems to stand for.


These inconsistencies are troubling to someone as anal-retentive as I 
am.  They keep me up nights.  They lead me to do things like...well, 
things like writing a long post to try to pin down George on his 
Credo, for instance.  


Lapses in consistency are problematic.  A certain fuzziness to the 
Credo also haunts my sleep.  Again, I find myself wondering: what 
beliefs does George find unacceptable?  What is Credo, and what 
suggestion?  What constitutes Heresy?

Is, for example, my highly idiosyncratic conviction that Snape really 
is a genuine sadist by visceral inclination (if not in current 
practice) actually an acceptable belief within the Georgian belief 
system?  Or is it Heresy?  How about my preference for Greyer-Than-
Black DEs about whom Snape has deeply ambivalent personal feelings?  
Can George accomodate such views in spite of the fact that Marina 
herself disagrees with them, or must I take my leave of George, and 
begin consorting instead with his nearly-identical twin theory, 
er, Fred?

I also want to know where George stands on seemingly "optional" 
theories that he has nonetheless expressed opinions on in the past: 
timelines, ambushes, Love of Lily, EEWWWWWW, EEEWWWWWer, and so 
forth.  *Are* these in fact optional?  Or are some of them indeed
a part of George's Credo?


Elkins wants a Georgian Manifesto!  

Elkins wants a Credo For George!  


<Elkins suddenly realizes that she *really* needs to get out more.  
She glances over to the bed, where George is still staring at her, 
his eyes wide and his lower lip trembling.  She manages a sickly sort 
of smile.)

It's all right, sonny.  Come on, we can have a cup of tea.

<For some strange reason, this does not seem to reassure George one 
bit.  He continues to stare.  Elkins lets out an exasperated sigh, 
stalks to the door, unlocks it, and sticks her head through the 
doorframe>

Marina!  Come and collect your boy!


-- Elkins




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Thu Feb 21 03:10:11 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 03:10:11 -0000
Subject: Snapetheories: The Cliff Notes Edition (was:Credo for George)
In-Reply-To: <a51l8f+6cmn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a51oej+8alq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35531

Elkins just did a remarkable job of analyzing the variants of 
the "George" theory.  However, while Elkins is providing us with in-
depth literary critiques of these theories, many of us on the list 
desperately need the Cliff Notes version.

To that effect, perhaps the authors of each of the various theories 
could provide their basic, stripped down, credo?  What I am 
envisioning is that each of us would leave the proceeding brief 
credos on the thread, so that when all the authors have weighed in, 
we'd have a complete list of all the theories.  

I don't think we should debate the theories on this thread -- just 
summarize them. 

My own theory is "EWWWW", also known as "TEWW EWWWWW to be TREEEW."  
It starts off by assuming that LOLLIPOPS (= Snape loved Lily) is 
true.  It then adds that Voldy knew Snape loved Lily, and planned to 
save Lily so that she could be Snape's wife/lover/whatever. 
(Presumably Snape would give her a love potion or something.) 
However, the thought of Lily's child being killed, and Lily never 
having her own personality again, horrified Snape and made him 
realize how evil Voldy was, making him (re)turn to the Light Side.  

--Judy





From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Thu Feb 21 03:28:44 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 03:28:44 -0000
Subject: Enviable & pitiable characters
In-Reply-To: <a51as8+oqot@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a51phc+o8c3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35532

Let me clarify what I said in my post that asked whether Harry 
was "the most pitiable character."  Harry has had a lot of hard 
knocks.  However, he seems to have come through just fine, and I 
expect he will have a bright future. (I don't expect him to be killed 
off.)  So, no, I don't pity him. 

Kimberly said, in regards to whether Sirius is charming: 
> in canon I don't really think he *has* charmed anyone, 
> particularly.  He doesn't seem too concerned with ingratiating 
> himself - he's focused on the task at hand to the detriment of 
> people's saftey, much less common courtesy, but I consider that 
> Azkaban-induced tunnel vision mostly.  I do think he'd do well to 
> apologize to Snape already, and I hope he proves to have less
> violent impulses the further he's removed from his time in prison, 
> but that's about it.  Draco, on the other hand, I see as a little 
> sociopath-in- training.  He seems fascinated with death, has shown 
> quite a talent for sucking-up (charming) when he wants to, and
> relishes hurting others<

Well, about Sirius being able to charm others, I was thinking of him 
as a Hogwarts student.  I don't think he's tried to charm anyone 
since being in Azkaban. 

About Draco being a sociopath -- I'm not sure.  He's got the "no 
conscience" part down pat, if you ask me.  But, he's not particularly 
impulsive, he's not especially skilled in duplicity, and he certainly 
isn't fearless.  So, he doesn't have all the traits.

As for the character in the most enviable position?  Well, that 
*would* have been Lucius -- rich, high status, attractive spouse, 
healthy child.  But, his muggle-hatred made him go sign up with 
Snakeman, and I'd say he'll be lucky if he escapes with his life. 

I actually envy Dumbledore's skill, respect, and position a great 
deal.  But I don't know enough about the rest of his life to know if 
things other than his career have gone well. 


-- Judy




From cindysphynx at home.com  Thu Feb 21 05:10:18 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 05:10:18 -0000
Subject: A Credo For George (SHIP)
In-Reply-To: <a51l8f+6cmn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a51vfq+cpjp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35533

Elkins and Judy are right.  What this Snape backstory discussion 
needs is some structure.  All this tap-dancing and meandering about 
has left everyone terribly confused.  I will do my part to reconcile 
my own internally inconsistent views, which I admit are all over the 
map and sprawled out in about 20 different posts.  If they can't be 
reconciled, I'm sure someone will point that out.  :-)

********

Elkins asked:

>[W]hat are the primary 
> characteristics of George?  If one were to declare oneself a 
> Georgian, what would that necessitate?
> 

I have signed on to a great number of Snape theories.  There's Prince 
of Darkness, Mercy, Mercy II, Ambush, and Tew Eww to be Treww.  I 
admit to flirting shamelessly with George (well, who hasn't?). You 
have all probably written me off as hopelessly fickle, confused, 
someone who will say anything to avoid the inevitability of 
LOLLIPOPS.  How wrong you all are! :-)

Now that I think about it, I am going to wrap up all of my theories 
into one gigantic mega-theory, a theory substantial enough to swallow 
the entire Potterverse:  The Big Bang Theory.

You see, Big Bangers generally tend to believe that most Big 
backstory questions can be answered by a Big Event in the character's 
life.  In other words, characters don't just wake up one morning and 
decide they want to evil.  Or good.  Or something else they weren't 
the day before.  No, we believe in clearly identifiable and 
significant canon catalysts for major character changes in outlook.  

Indeed, Big Bangers have a rather rigid bright line test to assist us 
in determining which theories are acceptable.  If we can't imagine a 
climactic, Oscar-worthy scene in which a character chooses a 
dramatically different path because of a Big Event, then the theory 
won't fly under Big Bang.  We have no use for fuzzy lens shots, 
montage sequences or soliloquies where characters stare off into 
space and develop a new perspective on their circumstances.  No, Big 
Bangers chew the scenery.  People who drift off to buy popcorn before 
a Big Bang scene are going to be completely lost for the rest of the 
story.

So let's apply our Big Bang Theory to the story questions that appear 
to have totally bewildered cute-but-addled George:

Elkins wrote:

> Well, from his introduction, it would seem that George is primarily 
> concerned with two backstory questions: Why Did Snape Join the DEs 
>In the First Place?, and Why Did He Then Turn?  

Big Bang has the answers to these two questions.  Snape joined the 
DEs because of The Prank.  This, I think, is consistent with George.  
Snape was royally ticked that Dumbledore hadn't supported Snape and 
disciplined the Marauders for The Prank.  Snape's anger was already 
simmering, and he was being actively recruited by DE friends, but The 
Prank blew things wide open. ::insert climactic scene in Dumbledore's 
office, which ends with Snape storming out and right into Karkaroff's 
lair::  Snape felt he had no choice but to join up with his DE 
friends.  

A central plank of the Big Bang platform is that Snape decides to 
join the DEs because of The Prank, *not* because of Love of Lily.  
Sorry, LOLLIPOPS crew, but Big Bang adamantly rejects Love of Lily as 
having any role at all in Snape's decision to become a DE.  (We are 
willing to embrace a bit of Love of Lily for other reasons, as 
explained below).

OK, next question.  Why did Snape return?  Well, Big Bang is a little 
more inclusive on this point.  Our detractors say we are inclusive on 
the point because we have no idea what the answer is.  We ignore them 
when they taunt us like this.  

In fact, the catalyst for Snape's return was his life debt to James.  
Voldemort makes clear to Snape that he is going to kill the Potters, 
and there is a Big climactic moment (see, there are many climactic 
moments in Big Bang) where Voldemort requires Snape to betray 
James.  ::insert climactic scene in which Voldemort tortures Snape 
for failing to deliver the Potters::  Snape at that moment shifts his 
allegiance to Dumbledore, unbeknownst to Voldemort, of course. 

Elkins again:

> I also want to know where George stands on seemingly "optional" 
> theories that he has nonetheless expressed opinions on in the past: 
> timelines, ambushes, Love of Lily, EEWWWWWW, EEEWWWWWer, and so 
> forth.  

Big Bang is ready and willing to serve.  Big Bang does not require a 
total rejection of LOLLIPOPS.  Instead, Big Bang only requires that 
LOLLIPOPS motivate small character decisions.  For instance, it is 
acceptable to believe that LOLLIPOPS is the reason Snape hates 
Harry.  We needn't have a Big catalyst for Snape's hatred of Harry.  
That is because Snape has always felt that way about Harry; he did 
not suddenly change course in the middle of our story.  No, he has 
always loathed Harry, and LOLLIPOPS is a perfectly good explanation 
for it.

Other subsidiary issues include the Ambush theories.  Again, Big Bang 
is not buying for a minute that Dumbledore just twinkled at Snape and 
suddenly believed Snape's conversion was true.  No, Dumbledore 
required something Big -- an Ambush, and a really big, bloody one 
involving lots of Snape's dearest friends.  Or the biggest Ambush we 
can support in canon, at least.  ::insert emotionally draining 
climactic scene in which Dumbledore demands proof, and Snape offers 
up a major betrayal of Snape's best friends, followed by a violent 
but effective Ambush::

Big Bang is actually quite a busy-body, because Big Bang also plans 
to weigh in on CUPID'SBLUDGER (that is, that Florence's kissing 
behind the greenhouse is important for some reason and is related to 
why Sirius hates Snape).  As soon as Big Bang can think of a Bang 
that is sufficiently Big, we will report back to the group. 
Currently, the Big Bang is mulling the idea that the Florence episode 
is Biggest if it is the Florence Trapezoid (Sirius is kissing 
Florence but is cheating on Lily).  But Big Bang is willing to 
withhold judgment, as CUPID'SBLUDGER is still in its infancy and may 
not be sufficiently Big.  Yet.

Ah yes, we know what you're thinking: All this yapping, and not a 
shred of canon.  Well, there happens to be canon all over the place 
to support Big Bang.  In the first 4 books, characters tend not to 
just up and change longstanding opinions or character traits absent a 
really Big Bang.  Ron has a fight with Harry over something Big:  
Ron's belief that Harry entered himself into the Triwizard 
Tournament.  Harry, Ron and Hermione become The Trio because Ron and 
Harry save her life (oooh, does that create a life-debt from Hermione 
to Ron and Harry?).  Lupin has to see a dead man on the Map before he 
changes his mind about Black.  

If JKR seems to require Big Events before characters change course in 
the books, she may have the same view of how backstories should be 
constructed.  Well, it's a theory, anyway.

Cindy (who isn't sure George is a slut, but acknowledges that he does 
get around quite a bit)




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 21 06:50:15 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 06:50:15 -0000
Subject: Animagi: can they chose what they will become?/How did Rita Skeeters become an Animaga?
In-Reply-To: <a51ats+dc7t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a525b7+tb14@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35534

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hockeychu" <CorGlacier7 at a...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Yoris" <msn.tsf at h...> wrote:
> 
> > Further more this brings me to the question: How did Rita Skeeter 
> became an
> > Animaga?
> >  I mean it took 3 of the most brilliant students hogwarts ever 
had 
> (Remus,
> > James and Sirius)
> 
> Never is it said they were the most brilliant students Hogwarts has 
> ever produced.  Please do *not* succumb to overblowing things.  
It's 
> said they *were* intelligent, which is quite a genral 
> description...half a class could be "intelligent".  That is all.

Aside for James Potter to be the Head Boy. (Did they need sneaking to 
get into restricted section or did the Head Boy have the right 
himself without any tricks?)
 
> <working together for 3 years to become animagi...
> 
> My take on this is that Animagism is exceptionally powerful stuff.  
I 
> don't think you'd find ANYONE who could do it their second year.  I 
> think most of the three years before it was done was spent finding 
> access to the books necessary and more especially...gaining the 
> necessary magical power and training!  A fully trained wizard would 
> probably take a good sight less than 3 years to accomplish the 
feat, 
> having the power necessary.

Yes - and getting the books with no trouble at all. She could have 
learned it by herself or had a friend ready to turn her back.





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 21 06:59:55 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 06:59:55 -0000
Subject: The Character In The Most Enviable Position Is . . .
In-Reply-To: <a51i1b+n0su@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a525tb+o9em@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35535

Dumbledore - (he's had his losses - but, he's been able to get over 
it) - being stable, wise and in good position, knowing so much on 
both Muggle and Wizard worlds, long life... What ever else, when I 
get old, he's a model on how to deal with it! (I get friends with No! 
I don't want to be 20! - but I can't imagine Dumbledore to go No! I 
don't want to be 200!)

Although, I'm not so sure if envy is the right word...




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 21 07:16:34 2002
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 07:16:34 -0000
Subject: HP vs Will Stanton
In-Reply-To: <a51hl0+kggj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a526si+mf03@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35536

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "abced99420" <abced99 at h...> wrote:

Oh, so that was the series I wanted to read...
 
>  I don't think JKR will do that to us. But what if she did?! End of 
> book 7: Harry wakes up from a nightmare of battling a wizard when 
mum 
> calls him down to breakfast, and panicked, feels his forehead, only 
> to _feel no scar_? I _hate_ those kinds of endings. But I bet JKR 
> will give us something a lot better.

But one I saw in sci-fi film: A group of people was trapped in their 
house, some odd metal all around it, and there's some odd green stuff 
inside-- answer? The people were in a *doll-house* of a giantic green 
girl, whose brother had left a lollipop inside and put the house into 
a heating pipe! (So the green lollipol melted...)




From thedarqstar at wmconnect.com  Thu Feb 21 03:49:32 2002
From: thedarqstar at wmconnect.com (thedarqstar at wmconnect.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 22:49:32 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Gryffindor's Quidditch team
Message-ID: <192.29b1053.29a5c84c@wmconnect.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35537

In a message dated 2/20/02 8:55:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
tanie_05 at hotmail.com writes:


> We've 
> already lost the Captain & Seeker (Wood) due to graduation.

Huh?  I thought Harry was Seeker.  Wasn't Wood the Keeper?  I don't have my 
books handy, or I'd check.


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





From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 21 05:28:34 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 05:28:34 -0000
Subject: The character I pity the most
In-Reply-To: <a4u47l+ttip@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a520i2+jb0j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35538

Hello all! Cutting my teeth here on this weighty
topic. I have to say that I didn't think much about
Frank Bryce the first time through...going in on my
second, I'll be really depressed when he shows up.

In any case, I find it hard to pity characters who
have a lot of, well, character. Lupin and Sirius
have had Troubles, but they don't dwell on it, and
they don't let it stop them. Ditto Harry, and to a
certain extent, Neville Longbottom. Their emotional
reserves allow them to bounce back respectably from
setbacks.

So, I find myself pitying characters who are FUBAR -
those who have let what would otherwise have been
minor neuroses ru(i)n their lives. Namely, Bartemius
Crouch, Sr. and Petunia Dursley. Yes, they've brought
their problems upon themselves, and yes, they could
theoretically change, but they won't. Whether or not
this quality makes them unworthy of sympathy is a
matter of opinion, but in my estimation, this is what
makes them more pathetic than hapless characters like
Cedric Diggory, who are better defined as tragic.

I suppose I should note that I'm hopping over here
from Severus Snape's Slytherin Society - Snape is
also fairly pitiable, although he's on the road to
redemption, so I don't feel sorry for him per se.
Plus he has a never-ending stream of exchange students
and new DADA professors to heal him with good lovin'.
He doesn't really need my pity. ^_^





From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 21 06:22:47 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 06:22:47 -0000
Subject: The Character In The Most Enviable Position Is . . .
In-Reply-To: <a51i1b+n0su@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a523nn+jvrd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35539

--- "jenp_97" <jenP_97 at y...> wrote:

<<
Well, while I agree with you about Hermione, your
reasons seem to suggest that we could consider Dudley
to be in an enviable position as well. He's the
product of loving (at least in HIS case) parents, he
has what seems to be plenty of money... he's plenty
confident... and *he* is popular with at least a big
group of thugs.
>>

I have to go with Hermione as well. She seems to have
been raised with an even hand; she is self-confident
without being egotistical (TOO much ^_^), she's brave
without being rash, and generally balances emotion and
logic about as well as you can expect a teenage girl to.

Dudley's problem is that some day he's going to
realize that he's not the center of the universe, and
it will be a rude awakening. Well, that or he never will,
and will end up being the culmination of Petunia and
Vernon's worst traits: superficial and petty, with a
powerful sense of entitlement. Ick!





From Edblanning at aol.com  Thu Feb 21 12:25:39 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 07:25:39 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Animagi: can they chose what they will become?/How di...
Message-ID: <133.9be3a3c.29a64143@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35540

In a message dated 20/02/02 23:25:13 GMT Standard Time, CorGlacier7 at aol.com 
writes:

> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Yoris" <msn.tsf at h...> wrote:
> 
> > Further more this brings me to the question: How did Rita Skeeter 
> became an
> > Animaga?
> >  I mean it took 3 of the most brilliant students hogwarts ever had 
> (Remus,
> > James and Sirius)
> 
> Never is it said they were the most brilliant students Hogwarts has 
> ever produced.  Please do *not* succumb to overblowing things.  It's 
> said they *were* intelligent, which is quite a genral 
> description...half a class could be "intelligent".  That is all.
> 
Actually, this ain't so and I don't think you're accurately quoting Yoris, 
either.
Lupin says (PoA, p259, UK ed), 'Your father and Sirius here were the 
cleverest students in the school'.
 Not the most brilliant ever, but certainly a lot more than just 
'intelligent': as Yoris said, three *of* the most brilliant Hogwarts 
students. That *of* is important.

 Eloise


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




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Feb 21 13:05:48 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:05:48 -0000
Subject: A Credo For George
In-Reply-To: <a51l8f+6cmn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a52rbc+maeg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35541

George fidgets in his chair, stares at his shoes, and wishes rather 
desperately for a dry martini.  He had no idea what he was getting 
into when he sauntered onto the list.  He thought he could fool 
around, play the field, flirt with all the other theories as his 
fancy took him.  But now he's being backed into a corner and asked 
to declare himself, to show some faithfulness, to -- <horrified 
gasp> -- *make a commitment*!  Horrors!  But, hey, there comes a 
time when every half-baked theory must grow up and settle down, and 
I'm sure I can walk George through the process while at the same 
time separating my own beliefs from George's credo.  

Okay, so here goes.


> So what issues specifically does George address?
> 
> Well, from his introduction, it would seem that George is 
primarily 
> concerned with two backstory questions: Why Did Snape Join the DEs 
In 
> the First Place?, and Why Did He Then Turn?  Later attempts to 
> clarify George's position by asking him questions about Lily, 
> ambushes, timelines, and suchnot just muddied the waters, IMO, 
> because these were all questions that really fell outside of
> George's purview.

Yep, that the deal.  Now, George *has* been rather indiscriminately 
poking his nose into a lot of other topics, some of them bearing no 
relation to Snape at all (such as the EWWWer theory, which I'll 
address later in this post), but that's because I'm interested in 
those topics, and George has been rather attached to me.  It's time 
to cut the apron strings, however.

> Why Did Snape Join the Death Eaters In the First Place?
> 
> 
> Marina's original introductory post seems to place a strong 
emphasis 
> on the Prank as a catalytic agent for Snape's mistrust of the 
Light 
> side and his subsequent belief that the Dark Was His Friend.

I wouldn't call it a *strong* emphasis.  I think young Snape was 
standing on the edge of a moral cliff, and the Prank (and 
Dumbledore's apparently mild reaction to it) pushed him over, but I 
think he would've jumped all by himself if he hadn't been pushed.  
And George is mainly concerned with the reasons why Snape was up 
there on that cliff in the first place, not why he went over.  My 
personal belief on the matter is summed up in the post you quote 
below:

> > As I've mentioned before, Snape was very young at the time, 
> > probably just out of Hogwarts. He had a general idea of what the 
> > DEs were up to, and thought he'd be okay with it. When you're an 
> > nasty, unpopular teenager with a suspicious knowledge of Dark 
Magic 
> > and a conviction that the people currently in charge are out to 
get 
> > you, it's pretty easy to go around thinking you're evil and even 
to 
> > get off on the concept (finding it glamorous and empowering, 
> > maybe) -- until someone actually says, "Here, torture this 
baby," 
> > and you suddenly find that maybe you're not as evil as you 
thought.
> 

Bit that's just me.  If we want to boil it down to what George 
stands for, then your summary covers it nicely:

> (1) Snape joined up willingly, with his eyes at least half-way 
open, 
> and with no thought of betraying the DEs at the time.

and

> (2) There may have been one or more catalytic events which prompted
> this action, but none of them were "Road To Damascus"-type 
catalysts 
> (ie, sudden epiphanous realizations that cause a complete 
ideological 
> about-face).  Whatever catalytic agency events like the Prank 
might 
> have possessed, they nonetheless were serving to push Snape 
further 
> down a road that he was already part-way *on,* rather than causing 
> him to change direction suddenly mid-stride.

Now, this is compatible with any number of other theories including 
some, like LOLLIPOPS, that I don't personally agree with.  The only 
theory that George won't play with is Big Bang, since George's whole 
philosophy is based on the lack of a single catalystic event.  

> So Why Did Snape Turn?
> 
> George's position here seems relatively clear.  George rejects
> "catalytic theories" of Snape's conversion, holding firm to the 
> notion that his disillusionment with the DEs was not a sudden 
> epiphanous revelation, but rather, a gradual realization that
> Voldemort and his followers were evil: their motives selfish, 
their 
> means unjustified, their ends corrupt, and their assumptions just 
> plain *wrong.*  

Yep.  This is the central point that gives George his existence.  
You can strip away everything else, but this has to stand.

> Furthermore, George would seem to favor a view of this realization 
> that roots it firmly in the realms of the intellectual and the 
> philosophical, rather than the emotional or the visceral.  George 
> emphasizes the notion that Snape's defection was not one of 
emotion, 
> but one of *principle.*

Again, Yep.  Basically, the two quoted sections above form the bulk 
of George's backbone (and he really does have a backbone, no matter 
how spineless he may seem as he flits around kissing every theory in 
the room.)

> Now, if this is really Core George, then I would be happy to 
declare 
> myself a Georgian.  Sometimes, though, George seems to waver even 
on 
> these most basic fundaments, even when this involves throwing 
> overboard his own once-favored timeline of events.  Take this 
> message, for example, in which George contemplates the possibility 
> that Snape's life-debt to James Potter might have served as the
> final straw pushing him from disillusionment into outright 
defection:
> 

I have to admit, both George and I are wobbly on the James Potter 
issue.  On the one hand, it's appealing because it's a perfect 
example of principle winning over sentiment: Snape *hates* James 
Potter; on the emotional level, he'd be quite happy to see him come 
to harm.  But principle demands that if a man saved your life, you 
don't just stand by and let him and his son be murdered.  So it's 
tempting to see this as a major motivating factor for Snape.  But, 
as you say, the timeline is hard to reconcile, plus it strays 
perilously close to the Big Bang theory, which is George's one 
antithesis.  So we waffle.  Overall, though, I don't think the "life-
debt to James" theory is incompatible with George; it's merely takes 
a bit of work to reconcile, same as LOLLIPOPS.

> At other times, George seems to venture far outside of his domain, 
> offering his opinions on all manner of things that don't really 
seem 
> to be any of his business (the "Even EWWWWWWWer" Theory, for 
example, 
> which I personally absolutely adore, but which I don't really 
think 
> has the slightest bit of bearing on the issues which George 
normally 
> stands to address).

The "Even EWWWWWWWWer" Theory, for those who've lost track, posits 
that Voldemort was willing to spare Lily's life because he'd heard 
some vague prophecy about how Lily's son would win the war for his 
father's side.  LV planned to get rid of Harry and make Lily bear 
him a new son, thus turning the prophecy to his own advantage; when 
Lily would have none of this, he decided to kill her and Harry both, 
and it's at that point that the prophecy bit him on the ass in the 
way most prophecies do.

This theory, as you all may notice, has *nothing whatsoever to do 
with Snape.* And, therefore, nothing whatsoever to do with George.  
He might've been hanging about when I proposed it, but only as an 
impartial observer.

> 
> 
> Most disturbing, however, is when George seems to falter on what I 
> consider to be one of the most rock-bottom tenets of his own 
Credo: 
> namely, Snape's disenchantment with the Death Eaters as a matter 
of 
> moral principle.
> 
> Marina: 
> 
> > Oh, I don't think Snape was clueless. I think Snape knew,
> > intellectually, exactly what the DEs were up to, and he thought 
it 
> > was okay by him. But when faced with the visceral reality of 
> > torture and murder, rather than just reading about it in Daily
> > Propher headlines, he found that it wasn't as okay as he thought 
it 
> > was.
> 
> Now, my problem with this is that to my mind, a visceral reaction 
> isn't really a matter of moral principle at all.  It is merely a 
> matter of squeamishness.  

See, I don't think this contradicts George's central tenets at all, 
but now we have to drag some of my own personal views into it.  See, 
I believe that in the ideal, morality and emotion are two separate 
spheres that shouldn't impinge on each other.  Human nature, 
however, make this ideal unattainable.  Highly focused analytical 
thinkers can and do achieve a high degree of separation between the 
two spheres (Kant wrote some really fat and impenetrable books about 
how one might do it), but total separation is impossible; human 
beings just aren't wired that way.  Some natural inclination, some 
visceral push is needed in order to get the moral faculty to engage.

Now, at the time Snape joined the DE's, his moral faculty must've 
been taking a nap (since George maintains that Snape wasn't ignorant 
of what he was getting into).  *Something* must have happened to 
make him sit up and start analyzing the philosophical implications 
of the DE agenda, and I believe that this something was his 
instinctive revulsion at murder and physical torture. In most of 
their aspects, the DEs were a perfect fit for Snape's personality, 
but this was the break-away point. Now, I don't think it's necessary 
for all Georgians to agree with me on this, but I do think that if 
you're going to hang out with George, you must have some idea as to 
how and why Snape's morals kicked in to put him in opposition to the 
DE's.


> Is, for example, my highly idiosyncratic conviction that Snape 
really 
> is a genuine sadist by visceral inclination (if not in current 
> practice) actually an acceptable belief within the Georgian belief 
> system? 

Yes, but then you need to provide your own explanation for Snape's 
moral conversion.  If Snape genuinely enjoyed everything that the 
DE's were up to, if all the killing and Muggle-torturing was 
actually fulfilling his natural desires, then why did he pause in 
his fun long enough to even start worrying about the abstract moral 
issues involved?  To me, it seems psychologically unrealistic, but 
if you can provide an internally consistent explanation that doesn't 
rely on a Big Bang, George will welcome you with open arms.

> How about my preference for Greyer-Than-
> Black DEs about whom Snape has deeply ambivalent personal 
feelings?  
> Can George accomodate such views in spite of the fact that Marina 
> herself disagrees with them

Did I give the impression that I disagree with that?  I must've been 
feeling exceptionally muddy-headed that day, because I actually do 
share that preference -- that is, if you mean that you believe Snape 
had real friends among the DEs, people whose company he enjoyed, and 
would've continued enjoying if he hadn't decided they were evil.  
This is exactly what George is about, after all -- the idea that 
Snape has put principle over sentiment.

> I also want to know where George stands on seemingly "optional" 
> theories that he has nonetheless expressed opinions on in the 
past: 
> timelines, ambushes, Love of Lily, EEWWWWWW, EEEWWWWWer, and so 
> forth.  *Are* these in fact optional?  Or are some of them indeed
> a part of George's Credo?

These are all optional, but I believe they can all be reconciled 
with George with varying amounts of effort.  The only exception 
might be EEWWWW, which places too much emphasis for George's taste 
on emotional considerations over moral ones, and also strays too 
close to Big Bang.

There; I hope that cleared the waters somewhat.  George and I will 
be happy to answer further questions, of course.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com







From tabouli at unite.com.au  Thu Feb 21 12:15:07 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 23:15:07 +1100
Subject: Acronym for George, Draco if Lucius died
Message-ID: <01b801c1bae1$99725760$e535c2cb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35542

Elkins:
> So what it seems to me that George really needs, if he is ever to 
become a position, rather than merely a personification of Marina's 
beliefs (however these may change over time) is a *Credo.*  (...)
(He also desperately needs an acronym.  But that's slightly beside 
the point.)<

T.A.G.S. (Tabouli's Acronym Generation Service) was long at a loss to provide George with an acronym, as no-one in the office could figure out exactly who he was or what he believed.  However, thanks to Elkins' sterling efforts at interrogating George during a seemingly innocuous babysitting session, I am happy to supply him with something which I *think* covers most of George's ethereal young body...

S.W.E.E.T.G.E.O.R.G.I.A.N.  (Snape Went Evil Expecting To Gloat, Eyes Open, Recanted Gradually, Incensed At Nauseating Iniquities and Shocking Morals)

judyserenity:
> As for the character in the most enviable position?  Well, that 
*would* have been Lucius -- rich, high status, attractive spouse, 
healthy child.  But, his muggle-hatred made him go sign up with 
Snakeman, and I'd say he'll be lucky if he escapes with his life.<

Hmmmmm.  Now, obviously Lucius doesn't qualify as a fan of Harry's (although... hmmm... maybe the reason why Draco hates Harry is that his father pays more attentiont to Harry than him...), but I do wonder what might happen if he died.  Ahaa!  Could we have a foreseeable catalyst for a big change in Draco?  Lucius is the anchor of Draco's world, his moral compass and claim to status and money... take him out of the picture somehow and Draco might well feel lost and bitter.  Maybe he could be a sociopath after all!  Or maybe it will trigger an empathic revelation of how Harry, also fatherless has suffered (EWW), enabling the Reform so many seem to crave!

I've always been sceptical about The Draco Reformation myself.  To my mind, one sneered warning to Hermione and one run-in with critical, inconsistent father do not a wronged-and-to-be-righted anti-hero make.  Nonetheless, agnostic that I am, I am willing to reconsider if further evidence emerges...

Tabouli.


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




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Thu Feb 21 14:28:09 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 01:28:09 +1100
Subject: Correction to George acronym
Message-ID: <025801c1bae4$0d0ab580$e535c2cb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35543

Oops!  Sorry, that was meant to be:

S.W.E.E.T.G.E.O.R.G.I.A.N.  (Snape Went Evil Expecting To Gloat, Eyes Open, Recanted Gradually, Incensed At Nefariousness)

or

S.W.E.E.T.G.E.O.R.G.I.A.N.I.S.M. (Snape Went Evil Expecting To Gloat, Eyes Open, Recanted Gradually, Incensed At Nauseating Iniquities and Shocking Morals


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




From msn.tsf at hccnet.nl  Thu Feb 21 14:38:59 2002
From: msn.tsf at hccnet.nl (Yoris)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 15:38:59 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Animagi: can they chose what they will become?/How di...
References: <133.9be3a3c.29a64143@aol.com>
Message-ID: <005901c1bae5$7ff0f720$9600000a@NEWPC>

No: HPFGUIDX 35544

Eloise writes:

> Actually, this ain't so and I don't think you're accurately quoting Yoris,
> either.
> Lupin says (PoA, p259, UK ed), 'Your father and Sirius here were the
> cleverest students in the school'.
>  Not the most brilliant ever, but certainly a lot more than just
> 'intelligent': as Yoris said, three *of* the most brilliant Hogwarts
> students. That *of* is important.
>
>  Eloise

Yes that is excactly what I meant Eloise, thanks for backing me up ;)

some people also said:
"> My take on this is that Animagism is exceptionally powerful stuff.
I
> don't think you'd find ANYONE who could do it their second year.  I
> think most of the three years before it was done was spent finding
> access to the books necessary and more especially...gaining the
> necessary magical power and training!  A fully trained wizard would
> probably take a good sight less than 3 years to accomplish the
feat,
> having the power necessary.

Yes - and getting the books with no trouble at all. She could have
learned it by herself or had a friend ready to turn her back."

There is no education after hogwarts so I don't think an average student
after school like Rita is much smarter/powerfull then James, Remus or
Sirius, and they worked TOGETHER also and it still took 3 years.
Rita became UNREGISTERED animagi so I think she might have a lot of trouble
getting the books too (tell me: how should she have gotten the books) and
some trouble getting anyone to help her since almost everyone hates her.

Joris





From barbara83_2001 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 21 13:53:36 2002
From: barbara83_2001 at yahoo.com (Barbara Inman)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 05:53:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Gryffindor's Quidditch team
In-Reply-To: <a51k1p+ak0f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020221135337.29806.qmail@web20001.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35545


--- Kyrstyne, tanie_05 <tanie_05 at hotmail.com> wrote:

...What's gonna happen to Gryffindor's
> Quidditch team? We've 
> already lost the Captain & Seeker (Wood) due to
> graduation. 

  Actually, Oliver Wood is Keeper.
  
  Well, 
> this is the rest of team's (except for Harry) last
> year at Hogwarts. 
> There is no possible way that Harry (and possibly
> whoever the new 
> Keeper is)could be the team after everyone else
> leaves. Hmmmm....food 
> for thought.

  I generally think that tryouts or something will be
held.  After all, Draco replaced the Slytherin seeker
after he graduated in Harry's first year (of course he
sort of bought the position).  Maybe Ron will be able
to join the team. 
                                   Barbara 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Feb 21 14:55:29 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:55:29 -0000
Subject: Acronym for George, Draco if Lucius died
In-Reply-To: <01b801c1bae1$99725760$e535c2cb@price>
Message-ID: <a531p1+5rpt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35546


> S.W.E.E.T.G.E.O.R.G.I.A.N.I.S.M.  (Snape Went Evil Expecting To
Gloat, Eyes Open, Recanted Gradually, Incensed At Nauseating
Iniquities and Shocking Morals)

George is extremely happy to finally be legitimized with an acronym. 
In fact, he's dancing on top of my coffee table with a lampshade on
his head.  Get down from there, George.  This is embarrassing, George.
You're scaring the cats, George.  Watch out for the Ming vas-- oh,
hell, I knew this was going to happen.

> Hmmmmm.  Now, obviously Lucius doesn't qualify as a fan of Harry's
(although... hmmm... maybe the reason why Draco hates Harry is that
his father pays more attentiont to Harry than him...), but I do wonder
what might happen if he died.  Ahaa!  Could we have a foreseeable
catalyst for a big change in Draco?  Lucius is the anchor of Draco's
world, his moral compass and claim to status and money... take him out
of the picture somehow and Draco might well feel lost and bitter. 
Maybe he could be a sociopath after all!  Or maybe it will trigger an
empathic revelation of how Harry, also fatherless has suffered (EWW),
enabling the Reform so many seem to crave!
> 

I think a lot would depend on the circumstances of Lucius' death.  If
he was killed by one of the obvious good guys, like Lupin or
Dumbledore, it might push Draco to LV's side irrevocably.  On the
other hand, Voldemort could kill Lucius himself, for insufficient
loyalty, or incompetence, or some similar reason; Voldemort seems
temperamental that way.  In which case Draco might decide that maybe
joining up with this guy isn't such a hot idea.  The question then is,
would Draco take this as an opportunity to join Dumbledore's side, or
would he strike out on his own and become a loose cannon?  Or, seeing
how Draco has not shown himself to be particularly brave, would he
just crawl under a convenient rock and try to lie low until this whole
current unpleasantness blows over?


Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com




From Edblanning at aol.com  Thu Feb 21 15:55:49 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:55:49 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snapetheories: The Cliff Notes Edition (was:Credo for Geo...
Message-ID: <193.29ed5d9.29a67285@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35547

In a message dated 21/02/02 03:10:57 GMT Standard Time, 
judyshapiro at earthlink.net writes:


> To that effect, perhaps the authors of each of the various theories 
> could provide their basic, stripped down, credo?  What I am 
> envisioning is that each of us would leave the proceeding brief 
> credos on the thread, so that when all the authors have weighed in, 
> we'd have a complete list of all the theories.  
> 

As Elkins noticed, I am certainly having a serious flirtation with George, 
without being totally clear as to his intentions, so I am very glad of this 
discussion (which is also doing what I pleaded for the other day, namely 
clearing up what all these theories *are*).
If Cindy's theory is the 'Big Bang', I think mine could be named after the 
old ( and now, I think, discredited ) alternative theory of the universe, the 
'Steady State'  theory.

This got a bit too long, so precis first, detail ( which has been refined a 
little) after.
                                     ****************************************
The Steady State theory ( short version)

The essential point is that Snape is complicated: his change in allegience 
comes not from a change in his essential nature, but from a growing awareness 
of what that nature is.
It rests on his soul being a battleground between two world views.
Loyalty to Voldemort stems from his background and then his school 
experiences which seem to confirm that good and evil are meaningless concepts.
The defection to Dumbledore results from a growing self-awareness, a 
realisation that he does believe in good and evil. Catalysts may have taken 
place, but are not necessary.
Snape doesn't actually *enjoy* being on the 'Light' side, he is there out of 
conviction, though his temperament militates against it.

L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. (in which I don't believe - yet!) and 
C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. (about which I am agnostic) are, I think, 
compatible, as are ambushes and any other number of embelishments.

                   **********************************************************
Now, as those who have read my posts will know, I am very against Road to 
Damascus 'conversion' theories when it comes to Snape (either joining or 
leaving the DEs). I'm not sure I'm being logical in this, but I instinctively 
rail against it. Yes, they happen, but I'm not sure they happen to people 
like Snape. 

You see, Snape *thinks*. To me, he's the sort of person who's an agnostic, 
not because they just can't make up their mind, or are too lazy to think 
things through, but because they *do* think and they find that things are 
very complicated, although at the same time they may yearn to believe 
*something*, one way or an other. The Pauline conversion demands a radical 
change of mind from one world view to another and I simply don't want to 
think that Snape ever had such a simplistic view of the world, at least not 
once he was old enough to think for himself. 
(Please note, this is not a criticism, in any way, shape, or form of anyone's 
religious beliefs. I'm religious myself. I just happen also to be a person 
who finds things very complicated. My temperament and my intellect are 
constantly at war, so that's where I'm coming from.)

Now, as a good agnostic, he might be expected to sit on the fence, but I 
think that the times militated against that, and that in any case, not only 
is our Snape is a man of action, but that he would consider doing so moral 
cowardice.

If he comes from a Dark wizarding background, as I believe, then I think he 
has been taught that it is power that is important. Concepts of good and evil 
were probably irrelevant. One acts out of self-interest, because that is the 
natural thing to do.
But many of us question the ideas with which we are raised. For a thinking 
person, exposure to someone like Dumbledore would make him ask questions.

My understanding of him is that his soul, psyche (whatever) is a 
battleground, not perhaps, between good and evil, which is how we might view 
it from the Light side, but between the existence and non-existence of good 
and evil.

(One of the things that has struck me is that the evil in HP is basically 
manifested in evil actions, this, along with some distinctly non PC views. 
Good and evil don't seem to be anchored in any kind of belief system. We 
don't appear to have either good or evil higher powers at work. This is 
(IMHO) one of the reasons why we have difficulty in defining exactly what the 
Dark Arts are. OTOH, Dumbledore and Voldemort have more than pasing 
similarities to God and the Devil, at least as, within the Potterverse, the 
embodiments of good and evil, so Snape turning from one to the other *looks* 
like a conversion.Yet actually, the 'Light' side is full of grey characters. 
Even Dumbledore, I think, particularly in the light of recent posts, can be 
regarded as grey. The difference between them and the 'Dark' ones, IMO, is 
that they recognise that good and evil exist.)

Elkins was kind enough to quote me on the subject of his turning to the DEs:

> It's not so much what the Marauders did that's the problem, as what 
> Dumbledore *didn't* do. I fancy he felt ever so let down by 
> the 'light' side, didn't find justice in the all-wise all-just 
> Dumbledore. . . . What's the point of allying yourself with 
> goodness if evil goes unpunished? Is there any difference between 
> the two sides? Perhaps not. 

It was a confirmation of the views of his upbringing: forget all this Good vs 
Evil nonsense.
So I think he went in with his eyes open, or as open as anyone else's who 
hadn't yet been initiated into the inner circle of Voldy's army. He wasn't 
joining something evil, because Evil didn't exist, or at least that was what 
he told himself at the time.
Only it does, and poor Severus' fate was to be a DE with conscience. 
Sometimes it is only when we actually *do* something that we know what we 
believe.
I am reminded here of an Ignatian technique I read about. The idea is that if 
one has a tough decision to make, one takes an appropriate length of time, a 
day or two perhaps and lives in the light of each decision in turn, noticing 
one's reactions to each and thus getting in touch with one's inner feelings 
about the 'rightness' of each. (For instance, if unsure whether to change 
job, you would pretend, if you like, that you had actually decided to and see 
how that decision affected you and then do the same for the opposite 
decision). I think that's kind of what he did. He had to make a decision of 
which side to ally himself with. He went with his upbringing, having found 
the alternative no better. But *living* his decision showed him his mistake. 
Yes, there may have been a catalyst, just as the Prank may have been a 
catalyst, but I think it was the cumulative effects of living a life which 
sat ill at ease with his complicated soul. Because the DE philosophy *is* 
simplistic. That's why they seem black to us, not grey. For all that they may 
be devoted to their widowed mothers and be kind to their cats, they follow a 
simple, self-interested philosophy. Snape, as we all ( I assume) agree, is 
grey down to his nightshirt ( a curious detail, I thought) and we have noted 
that 'Light' characters are actually noted for their greyness. 

Because Snape is a principled man and one who acts from conviction, he has no 
alternative but to change sides. But he doesn't really *like* it and there 
are still areas which he hasn't thought out, for instance in the field of 
personal relationships, where he still largely acts thoughtlessly and out of 
self interest. Good and Evil are things which apply to the Big things in 
life, he hasn't realised that they can apply to the small things, too. As 
I've said before, I think that the sarcastic, cruel remarks etc are also a 
bit of a safety valve.

Eloise













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




From miss_hollygolightly at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 21 16:02:01 2002
From: miss_hollygolightly at hotmail.com (hollygolightly95)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:02:01 -0000
Subject: Sirius and the Dark Mark
Message-ID: <a535lp+qlog@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35548

Greetings from London, England.
Apologies if this has been discussed before (couldn't find it in the 
archives...)

If all Death Eaters have the Dark Mark on their arm, it should be 
easy enough to identify them. If Sirius never was a Death Eater, he 
doesn't carry the mark, so why was that not enough to prove his 
innocence? Why was he sent to Azkaban without even a trial?

holly





From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu  Thu Feb 21 16:11:26 2002
From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:11:26 -0000
Subject: Marauders learning animagi; Lupin's animal form?
In-Reply-To: <a510fb+msl2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5367e+oi93@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35549

Hello!

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

> Supposedly the Animagi-books are in restricted section (as it requires
> registration) in Hogwarts Library. They must have begun during 4th
> year if not earlier. I think Lupin's parents were animagi and agreed
> to teach the group so that they didn't have to do it alone. (AND gave
> them the books - so that they don't need to break rules for them...)

Since I haven't seen anyone make this correction yet, I thought I would.

POA, Ch. 18: "And they didn't desert me at all....They became Animagi."
"My dad too?" said Harry, astounded.
"Yes, indeed," said Lupin. "It took them the best part of three years
to work out how to do it....Finally in our fifth year, they managed
it. They could each turn into a different animal at will."

5-3=2 They clearly started in their 2nd year, at least to do the
research, and though I have no evidence, I doubt very much they told
any adult what they were up to. Though it's very possible that they
obtained the books, not from Hogwarts library, but from someone's
family's private collection. And maybe broke into the library, too.


I've been wanting to bring this up for a bit now, and it seems as good
a time as any:

It seems from Rowling's answers and the nature of Animagi as they are
presented, one's transformation is in fact a. out of one's direct
control/choice; and b. in some part based upon the inward nature of
the individual attempting to transform.

Given these two suppositions, what type of animal do you all think
Lupin might have become had he tried the transformation himself?

In other words, I'm really asking two questions:

1. Does the fact that Remus is a werewolf adversely effect or somehow
change his nature sufficiently to render Animagus transformation moot
(i.e., he'll become a wolf)?;

2. To what extent does the wolf dictate his true animal form? Is it
possible that he could in fact transform at will into some other
animal, and if so, which animal? What would it reveal about his character?

Gwen




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Feb 21 16:28:36 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:28:36 -0000
Subject: Sirius and the Dark Mark
In-Reply-To: <a535lp+qlog@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5377k+oihg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35550

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hollygolightly95" 
> If all Death Eaters have the Dark Mark on their arm, it should be 
> easy enough to identify them. If Sirius never was a Death Eater, he 
> doesn't carry the mark, so why was that not enough to prove his 
> innocence? Why was he sent to Azkaban without even a trial?

I would guess that at the time, the Dark Mark was not common knowledge
(in fact, it still isn't -- it seemed to be news to Fudge when Snape
revealed his Mark and explained what it was).  The DE's, after all,
didn't go around flashing it in public -- it was their secret club
tatoo, a sign of their mystical connection to Voldemort.  I wouldn't
be surprised if Sirius himself had never heard of the Mark at the time
he was arrested.

Later, when Voldemort was gone and the DEs were being rounded up, the
Aurors and the MoM would've presumably found out about the Mark.  But
Sirius was already locked up by then, and it wouldn't have occured to
anyone to say, "Hey, maybe we should drop by Azkaban and take a look
at Black's arm, just in case he's innocent."

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From bonnie.abrams at cwine.com  Thu Feb 21 17:27:09 2002
From: bonnie.abrams at cwine.com (sing2wine)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:27:09 -0000
Subject: Birthdays & Gryffindor's Quidditch team 
Message-ID: <a53ald+i6g9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35551

I finally got off moderated status 2 weeks ago and haven't posted in 
as long!

Anyway,

Kyrstyne asked about whether Harry gets his friends birthday 
presents. There were several responses indicating he does but that 
J.K. didn't have time to list them. I wanted to add that the reason 
it's not important is that part of the description of Harry's 
miserable life before Hogwarts is that the Dursleys never celebrated 
his birthday. Now he has friends who do.

Kyrstyne also asks about Gryffindor's Quidditch team  team. I think 
it will be a wonderful opportunity to develop some new and old 
characters. Maybe one of Ginny's long awaited talents will be 
Quidditch. Perhaps some new and interesting first years will appear - 
as Harry did when he was a first year.

Bonnie / sing2wine




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Feb 21 17:33:15 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:33:15 -0000
Subject: Sirius and the Dark Mark
In-Reply-To: <a535lp+qlog@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a53b0r+ojsf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35552

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hollygolightly95" 
<miss_hollygolightly at h...> wrote:

> If all Death Eaters have the Dark Mark on their arm, it should be 
> easy enough to identify them. If Sirius never was a Death Eater, 
he  doesn't carry the mark, so why was that not enough to prove 
his  innocence? Why was he sent to Azkaban without even a 
trial?

Sirius was captured after Voldemort's fall when the Mark had  
vanished. The vanishing would have been among the signs that 
Voldemort had really gone. The mark only returned as Voldemort 
began to regain his physical form. Thus Snape's remark in the 
Penseive, "It's coming back...Karkaroff's too...stronger and 
clearer than ever." 

I wonder how the Mark was hidden when the Dark Lord was still 
strong. Perhaps Voldemort can control how visible it is. Or 
perhaps the Ministry knew about the Mark from Snape but did not 
dare to use the knowledge, say to  search any suspects, 
because it might have revealed that one of Voldemort's Inner 
Circle was a traitor, thus compromising Snape. In World War II 
the British had to be very cautious about using information they 
had deciphered from the Enigma code because they didn't want 
the Germans to know they had broken it.

Pippin




From tanie_05 at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 21 17:51:00 2002
From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:51:00 -0000
Subject: Gryffindor's Quidditch team
In-Reply-To: <a51k1p+ak0f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a53c24+jrlk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35553

OOOPS!!! I just caught myself on my mistake. I'm really sorry about 
it. I meant Keeper, *not* Seeker. I apologize for any confusion. 
Thanx!

-Kyrstyne(who is slapping herself on her head)




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Feb 21 18:02:43 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:02:43 -0000
Subject: Animagi: can they chose what they will become?/How di...
In-Reply-To: <005901c1bae5$7ff0f720$9600000a@NEWPC>
Message-ID: <a53co3+8nlf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35554

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Yoris" <msn.tsf at h...> wrote:

> There is no education after hogwarts so I don't think an average
student
> after school like Rita is much smarter/powerfull then James, Remus
or
> Sirius, and they worked TOGETHER also and it still took 3 years.

There is no *formal* education after Hogwarts, but that doesn't
preclude the possibility of an apprenticeship system, on-the-job
training, private research, or other forms of education.  

> Rita became UNREGISTERED animagi so I think she might have a lot of
trouble
> getting the books too (tell me: how should she have gotten the
books) 

She could've bribed a registered animagus to teach her (I'm sure not
every registered animagus is morally unimpeachable).  She could've had
access to the private library of a registered animagus friend or
relative.  She could've used her press credentials at the Daily
Prophet to access libraries that would normally be inacessible to her.


> and
> some trouble getting anyone to help her since almost everyone hates
her.
> 

I doubt "almost everyone" hates her.  I've met any number of people as
obnoxious as Rita, who nevertheless had friends.  Usually the friends
were just as obnoxiuos, but sometimes they weren't.  Other people who
share Rita's gossipy mindset would probably like her, and may even
wish to assist her with things like animagic research in order to
facilitate her gossip-mongering.





From mjollner at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 21 17:31:05 2002
From: mjollner at yahoo.com (mjollner)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:31:05 -0000
Subject: US & UK editions, Big Bang, Steady State
In-Reply-To: <a4trpd+bh8d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a53asp+mape@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35555

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "joanne0012" <Joanne0012 at a...> wrote:
> 
> The Harry Potter Galleries have assembled a list of the text 
differences between 
> the US and UK editions:
> 
> http://www.popogo.com/hol/words/wordgallery1.htm

Thanks for the link - I'll have to take a look at it - but the point 
of my post was that upon perusing my newly received UK editions, I 
was amazed at how *few* textual changes there actually are between the 
US and UK editions, and how great are the differences between the 
respective cover illustrations.  I suppose once Scholastic decided 
that Book One needed a title change, the powers-that-be felt, "why 
stop there?".  So IMO, there is no need for separate editions, but the 
fact that there are so few *real* differences between them means that 
the US editions are not "dumbed down"...

The covers of the US editions are much more attractive than their UK 
counterparts and stylistically, the various titles seem much more a 
part of the same series.  They also give a much cheerier impression 
of the contents, which is misleading, especially for Books Three and 
Four.  The UK illustrations are for the latter titles are much darker 
in tone - if I hadn't have read the book already, the dragon on the 
cover of UK GoF would have made me think the work was pure fantasy 
rather than a hybrid (though Harry's sneakers might have given a 
clue).  And I can't seem to shake the picture of Padfoot on the back 
of UK PoA - saliva dripping from his jaws, sharp teeth bared - which 
reminds me more of the fiend dog in "The Hound of the Baskervilles" 
than the warm and protective character of GoF, not to restart the 
whole PoA Sirius v. GoF Sirius debate again!  The US edition 
illustrations are comparatively warm and fuzzy, though any broad 
cultural extrapolations based on those observations will have to go 
OT...

Several other people posted within the last few weeks that they too 
had ordered the paperback boxed set from Amazon UK; anyone disagree 
with my observations?

<cindysphynx wrote:
<Now that I think about it, I am going to wrap up all of my theories 
<into one gigantic mega-theory, a theory substantial enough to swallow 
<the entire Potterverse:  The Big Bang Theory.

<You see, Big Bangers generally tend to believe that most Big 
<backstory questions can be answered by a Big Event in the character's 
<life.  In other words, characters don't just wake up one morning and 
<decide they want to evil.  Or good.  Or something else they weren't 
<the day before.  No, we believe in clearly identifiable and 
<significant canon catalysts for major character changes in outlook.  

<Indeed, Big Bangers have a rather rigid bright line test to assist us 
<in determining which theories are acceptable.  If we can't imagine a 
<climactic, Oscar-worthy scene in which a character chooses a 
<dramatically different path because of a Big Event, then the theory 
<won't fly under Big Bang.  We have no use for fuzzy lens shots, 
<montage sequences or soliloquies where characters stare off into 
<space and develop a new perspective on their circumstances.  No, Big 
<Bangers chew the scenery.  People who drift off to buy popcorn before 
<a Big Bang scene are going to be completely lost for the rest of the 
<story.

Hear, hear!  My internal drama queen thrills to this theory!  There's 
something theatrical in Love of Lily, too - I have been eyeing 
LOLLIPOPS warily from shore, trying to decide if the accomodations are 
worth the price (to my stomach, if not my conscience) or if I should 
hold out for a suite-for-the-price-of-a-cabin deal, with a big bottle 
of antacid thrown in for good measure - but *this* is a theory I want 
to embrace wholeheartedly.  Though I have to admit I can't say "Big 
Bangers" with a straight face.  Ahem...

But then Eloise comes along with her good sense and "Steady State:"

<The Steady State theory ( short version)

<The essential point is that Snape is complicated: his change in 
<allegience comes not from a change in his essential nature, but from 
<a growing awareness of what that nature is. It rests on his soul 
<being a battleground between two world views. Loyalty to Voldemort 
<stems from his background and then his school experiences which seem 
<to confirm that good and evil are meaningless concepts. The defection 
<to Dumbledore results from a growing self-awareness, a realisation 
<that he does believe in good and evil. Catalysts may have taken 
<place, but are not necessary. Snape doesn't actually *enjoy* being on 
<the 'Light' side, he is there out of conviction, though his 
<temperament militates against it.

<L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. (in which I don't believe - yet!) and 
<C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. (about which I am agnostic) are, I think, 
<compatible, as are ambushes and any other number of embelishments.

But...but...but...(trying not to sputter her breakfast Diet Coke all 
over the keyboard) where's the fun in that?!?  OK, so your theory is 
perfectly reasonable and sound and even persuasive, but it just 
doesn't have, y'know, *pizazz.*

So might I suggest an acronym to jazz things up?  How 'bout 
M.E.T.A.M.O.R.P.H.O.S.I.S.: Mere Evil Troubled Awareness, Motivating 
Our Racked, Principled anti-Hero Onward, Seeking Integrity and 
Solution?

OK, so it's a little weak in the middle.  Couldn't find a better noun 
for the "H." We can't all be Tabouli, now can we?!? :)

Mjollner, still looking longingly toward her tiara





From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 21 18:05:34 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:05:34 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Birthdays & Gryffindor's Quidditch team
Message-ID: <F23LFYxc9NUpuabjKoM0000386f@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35556

Regarding Quidditch, Bonnie said:
>Perhaps some new and interesting first years will appear -
as Harry did when he was a first year.

I've often wondered about this. What will happen if Harry is made team 
captain. Will he consider first-years more readily or will he stick with the 
status quo?

J

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





From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Thu Feb 21 18:17:42 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:17:42 -0000
Subject: US & UK editions, 
In-Reply-To: <a53asp+mape@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a53dk6+rf42@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35557

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

> Thanks for the link - I'll have to take a look at it - but the point 
> of my post was that upon perusing my newly received UK editions, I 
> was amazed at how *few* textual changes there actually are between the 
> US and UK editions, and how great are the differences between the 
> respective cover illustrations.  I suppose once Scholastic decided 
> that Book One needed a title change, the powers-that-be felt, "why 
> stop there?".  So IMO, there is no need for separate editions, but the 
> fact that there are so few *real* differences between them means that 
> the US editions are not "dumbed down"...

The very fact that ANY substitutions were made and British language was 
changed for the American kids DOES mean that they were "dumbed down."

> The covers of the US editions are much more attractive than their UK 
> counterparts and stylistically, the various titles seem much more a 
> part of the same series. 

One of the reasons I focused on the text aspects of your message was that I 
think Grandpre's work is hideous.




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 21 18:35:28 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:35:28 -0000
Subject: Crouch/Moody and the Map
In-Reply-To: <a511tp+np9o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a53elg+8ul3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35558

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sirius_kase" <karen at i...> wrote:
> And there is another theory that fixes that problem.  Crouch may 
> not be using polyjuice at the time.  It is a very quick acting 
potion 
> so there is no need for him to use it when he isn't expecting to be 
> seen.  He may even be using his invisibility cloak while in 
> Snapes office.

No, even when Crouch is disguised as Moody, the Map identifies him 
correctly.  In PoA, ch.18, Lupin says, "...the Marauder's Map never 
lies."  He doesn't merely say that it isn't fooled by animagi; he 
says it NEVER lies.  And, as he was one of the mapmakers, we can 
expect that he knows it's capabilities.

Then in GoF ch. 25, notice Crouch/Moody's behavior when he is first
looking  at the Map.  He sees that there are labeled tiny figures, 
and asks, "Potter..." he said slowly, "you didn't happen, by any 
chance, to see who broke into Snape's office, did you?  On this map, 
I mean?"

I think he's wondering if Harry knew he (Moody) was the one.  If so, 
he'll probably trot out the "Auror's privilege" line again.  But 
Harry says,

"Er...yeah, I did..." Harry admitted. "It was Mr. Crouch."  Moody's 
magical eye whizzed over the entire surface of the map.  He looked 
suddenly alarmed.  "Crouch?" he said.  "You're sure, Potter?"

He didn't expect the map to identify him as Crouch, and instantly 
looks at the map again, searching for himself.  His next action-- he 
borrows the map from Harry, thus preventing Harry from seeing that he 
is on the stairs not with Alastor Moody, but with Barty Crouch.  
(That he was later able to use the map to find and kill his father 
was just "icing on the cake.")





From moongirlk at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 21 18:56:05 2002
From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:56:05 -0000
Subject: Bangers and their bangs (was: A Credo For George (SHIP))
In-Reply-To: <a51vfq+cpjp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a53fs5+79p5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35559

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

> You see, Big Bangers generally tend to believe that most Big 
> backstory questions can be answered by a Big Event in the 
character's 
> life.  In other words, characters don't just wake up one morning 
and 
> decide they want to evil.  Or good.  Or something else they weren't 
> the day before.  No, we believe in clearly identifiable and 
> significant canon catalysts for major character changes in 
outlook.  

I'm ambivalent about Big Bang, I think.  There's some room for bangs 
in my way of viewing the Potter world, but I don't think that *all* 
changes are the result of a Big Bang.  For example, in the specifics 
of Snape's story, I don't think I buy any of the bangs that have been 
presented so far, which is why I've spent a few evenings in George's 
company lately.  I'll get to that more later though.


Elkins:
> > Well, from his introduction, it would seem that George is 
primarily 
> > concerned with two backstory questions: Why Did Snape Join the 
DEs 
> >In the First Place?, and Why Did He Then Turn?  
> 
Cindy:
> Big Bang has the answers to these two questions.  Snape joined the 
> DEs because of The Prank.  This, I think, is consistent with 
George.  
> Snape was royally ticked that Dumbledore hadn't supported Snape and 
> disciplined the Marauders for The Prank.  Snape's anger was already 
> simmering, and he was being actively recruited by DE friends, but 
The 
> Prank blew things wide open. ::insert climactic scene in 
Dumbledore's 
> office, which ends with Snape storming out and right into 
Karkaroff's 
> lair::  Snape felt he had no choice but to join up with his DE 
> friends.  

I can't buy that Snape joined the DE's specifically because of the 
Prank, but I can buy that it was a part of it.  I think Snape had a 
predisposition toward darkness.  I like the way George describes 
this - he maybe thought Evil was kinda 'cool' at first, hence the 
learning of curses early on.  He was sorted into Slytherin and hung 
out with other kids who might have had a similar outlook as far as 
the coolness of Evil, and then all those who "supposedly" represented 
Good were tools who were superior and dismissive and snobbish (from 
his perspective).  So he's already pretty much decided he'd rather 
hang out with those considered Evil because at least they don't 
pretend to be something (ie Good) that they're not (again, from his 
perspective), but he still has a lingering respect for Dumbledore 
that might have kept him from going too far until he decided that 
even he was a hypocrite because he protected the Marauders.  So I 
can't call the prank a Big Bang, but it does seem to be *a* bang.

> OK, next question.  Why did Snape return?  <snip>
> 
> In fact, the catalyst for Snape's return was his life debt to 
James.  <snip>

Here's where I get cozy with George.  I don't think any one Bang did 
the trick with Snape.  I agree with George that it was a gradual 
change involving beliefs and principles.  I don't think that rules 
out viscerality (is that a word) or emotional responses - I think 
they all go together - but I have to believe that Snape changed his 
mind instead of having it changed for him by some outside event.  I 
feel this way because of Snapes amazing strength of will.  He is a 
very stubborn individual, and I can't imagine something outside of 
himself causing him to change his mind.  He wouldn't even listen to 
the explanation about Peter being alive in PoA.  He is not going to 
change his opinion about Sirius until he has a chance to come to the 
conclusions on his own.  Even in GoF he hasn't accepted Sirius.  
Sure, he's going to deal with the truce that Dumbledore imposes, and 
apparently (although it isn't 100% clear) buys that Sirius wasn't the 
one responsible for the Potters' death.  But I think he's still 
convinced that Sirius is "capable of murder" (which is a rich 
accusation from a former DE).  I just think Snape makes up his mind 
on his own, and once he does, he's not changing it until and unless 
he's good and ready.

<snip>
> 
> Other subsidiary issues include the Ambush theories.  Again, Big 
Bang 
> is not buying for a minute that Dumbledore just twinkled at Snape 
and 
> suddenly believed Snape's conversion was true.  No, Dumbledore 
> required something Big -- an Ambush, and a really big, bloody one 
> involving lots of Snape's dearest friends.  

The ambush thing... it just doesn't make any sense to me.  Not that I 
don't think there could be an ambush, but I don't think that: 

1.Dumbledore would require such a thing.  He doesn't exact any 
similar kind of proof from Harry, Sirius, Ginny, etc. in the books, 
and it's not consistent with his character in my mind.

or:

2.An ambush would necessarily prove anything.  Someone else (can't 
remember who - sorry!) has already said that V wouldn't mind setting 
some of his people up to get Snape in Dumbledore's camp as a spy.  
What's more, setting up your former compatriots doesn't seem the best 
way to prove that you wouldn't do the same to the current.  


> Big Bang is actually quite a busy-body, because Big Bang also plans 
> to weigh in on CUPID'SBLUDGER (that is, that Florence's kissing 
> behind the greenhouse is important for some reason and is related 
to 
> why Sirius hates Snape).  As soon as Big Bang can think of a Bang 
> that is sufficiently Big, we will report back to the group. 

I have a theory brewing that would probably make a great Big Bang, 
but it's rather tongue-in-cheek and not quite worked out enough to 
post yet.

I still don't quite know what the rest of the thories are yet, so I 
don't know where I fit in.  I'm pretty sure I'd rather not see 
LOLLIPOPS be true (mostly because reading someone's post about it 
resulted in my imagining Severus Snape standing under a spotlight in 
a leotard and legwarmers singing "What I did for Love"), but will be 
ok if it is.  I think EEEEEW is every-so-very-EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEW, and 
I don't know what the Prince theories or the Mercy theories are yet.  
Is there room for much cross-believing?  
Can one be a "Big GeorgiePOPS", for example?


kimberly
afraid she's just caused a new imagining to go with that of singing 
Severus




From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Thu Feb 21 19:12:18 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:12:18 -0000
Subject: Sirius and the Dark Mark
In-Reply-To: <a5377k+oihg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a53gqi+6nu0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35560

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hollygolightly95" 
> > If all Death Eaters have the Dark Mark on their arm, it should be 
> > easy enough to identify them. If Sirius never was a Death Eater, he 
> > doesn't carry the mark, so why was that not enough to prove his 
> > innocence? Why was he sent to Azkaban without even a trial?
> 
> I would guess that at the time, the Dark Mark was not common knowledge
> (in fact, it still isn't -- it seemed to be news to Fudge when Snape
> revealed his Mark and explained what it was).  The DE's, after all,
> didn't go around flashing it in public -- it was their secret club
> tatoo, a sign of their mystical connection to Voldemort.  I wouldn't
> be surprised if Sirius himself had never heard of the Mark at the time
> he was arrested.
> 
> Later, when Voldemort was gone and the DEs were being rounded up, the
> Aurors and the MoM would've presumably found out about the Mark.  But
> Sirius was already locked up by then, and it wouldn't have occured to
> anyone to say, "Hey, maybe we should drop by Azkaban and take a look
> at Black's arm, just in case he's innocent."
> 
I don' think they were particularly interested in Sirius's innocence.
 They "knew" he had killed Pettigrew and twelve muggles, DE or not. 
Being Voldie's heir apparent might be an embellishment people added
later on as they interpreted what they thought they knew about events.
So Sirius's status as DE wasn't relevant enough to investigate.  

--Dicentra, who figures Fudge is evil and is partly responsible for
framing Sirius 




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 21 19:35:32 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:35:32 -0000
Subject: Sweetgeorgianism 
In-Reply-To: <193.29ed5d9.29a67285@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a53i64+5rkc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35561

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:
> The Steady State theory 
> 
> The essential point is that Snape is complicated: his change in 
> allegience comes not from a change in his essential nature, but 
>from a growing awareness of what that nature is.
> The defection to Dumbledore results from a growing self-awareness, 
>a realisation that he does believe in good and evil. Catalysts may 
>have taken place, but are not necessary.
> Snape doesn't actually *enjoy* being on the 'Light' side, he is 
>there out of conviction, though his temperament militates against it.
[Snip}
>He had to make a decision of which side to ally himself with. He 
>went with his upbringing, having found the alternative no better. 
>But *living* his decision showed him his mistake. Yes, there may 
>have been a catalyst, just as the Prank may have been a 
> catalyst, but I think it was the cumulative effects of living a 
>life which sat ill at ease with his complicated soul. Because the DE 
>philosophy *is* simplistic. That's why they seem black to us, not 
>grey. [Snip] and we have noted that 'Light' characters are actually 
noted for their greyness. 
 
> Because Snape is a principled man and one who acts from conviction, 
>he has no alternative but to change sides. But he doesn't really 
>*like* it [Snip]
> I've said before, I think that the sarcastic, cruel remarks etc are 
>also a bit of a safety valve.
> Eloise

Beautifully expressed, Eloise!  Would anyone else like to vote for 
Severus as the character most worthy of pity.  The poor thing is 
forced by his own conscience to be a good person when he'd be SO much 
happier as a really rotten b*****d.  

And what's Snape's reward? He's stuck taching "dunderheads" like 
Longbottom to brew potions.  Potter torments him by breaking the 
rules and getting away with it.  A map insults him. Dumbledore 
smiles when Severus's archenemy escapes a date with a dementor.  And 
McGonagall gets to lord it over him that Gryffindor keeps winning the 
house cup! 

Sign me up as a full member of S.W.E.E.T.G.E.O.R.G.I.A.N.I.S.M.  I 
too believe that Snape's moral development was probably a gradual 
process.  It was probably helped along by numerous catalysts, but not 
by a few "Big Bang" events.  

What would I say to Severus if I got to meet him?  "It's a good thing 
I admire you so much, because if I didn't, I'd really loathe you."

Oh, and while we're on the subject of our favorite potionsmaster.  
Reread his first speech to Harry's class in PS/SS.  "You are here to 
learn the subtle science..."  The man has the soul of a poet!  Now if 
only he'd wash his hair...




From cindysphynx at home.com  Thu Feb 21 19:44:38 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 19:44:38 -0000
Subject: Bangers and their bangs (was: A Credo For George (SHIP))
In-Reply-To: <a53fs5+79p5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a53in6+qp38@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35562

Kimberly wrote:

> The ambush thing... it just doesn't make any sense to me.  Not that 
>I 
> don't think there could be an ambush, but I don't think that: 
> 
> 1.Dumbledore would require such a thing.  He doesn't exact any 
> similar kind of proof from Harry, Sirius, Ginny, etc. in the books, 
> and it's not consistent with his character in my mind.


True, Dumbledore doesn't make Harry, Sirius or Ginny do anything 
dramatic to prove their loyalty.  But why should he?  Ginny is a 
little kid who was clearly possessed.  Harry never did anything evil 
that would require that he prove his loyalty to Dumbledore.  As for 
Sirius, Sirius could change back and forth into an animagus to 
demonstrate his innocence.  And even if Dumbledore wanted more proof 
from Sirius, he wasn't going to be able to get it before Sirius' soul 
was sucked out.  No, the reason Snape has to pay such a high price to 
get back on Dumbledore's team is that he absolutely, definitely, of 
his own free will, decided to join the DEs, and he is the only 
character in that position.

I feel pretty confident that Dumbledore will be shown to made of 
pretty tough material in future books.  Sure, he's the nice old 
headmaster in times of peace, but when there is a war on, Dumbledore 
would not be above doing what it takes to win.  I think Grindewald 
would back me up here.  :-)

Kimberly again:

> 2.An ambush would necessarily prove anything.  Someone else (can't 
> remember who - sorry!) has already said that V wouldn't mind 
>setting 
> some of his people up to get Snape in Dumbledore's camp as a spy.  
> What's more, setting up your former compatriots doesn't seem the 
>best 
> way to prove that you wouldn't do the same to the current.  

Maybe the best defense is a good offense on this one.  Let's say 
Snape walked into Dumbledore's office, burst into tears, bawling 
about his Love of Lily, and begging to be allowed back into 
Dumbledore's camp.  He even gives Dumbledore all of his old tear-
stained pictures of Lily to prove the strength of his love.  
(Ewwww!).  Dumbledore gives Snape a good twinkling and can just 
*tell* that Snape is sincere.  Well, if Dumbledore is such a good 
judge of character, why was Peter able to spy for a whole year, right 
under Dumbledore's nose?  Dumbledore suspected there was a spy in his 
camp; why didn't he just interview everyone and twinkle at them until 
he got to Peter?

The answer, in my view, is that Dumbledore can't smoke out a spy that 
easily.  Accepting Snape's ambush of his best friends wouldn't be a 
100% guarantee that Snape's conversion was true, but it was sure 
better than nothing.  It also has the fringe benefit of taking out 
several dangerous opposition soldiers at the same time.  I get the 
impression that the DEs were not a huge group (30?).  If Snape's 
ambush was planned to take out three DEs plus Rookwood (who didn't 
show up), that's over 10% of Voldemort's top soldiers.

Kimberly again:

> I don't know what the Prince theories or the Mercy theories are 
>yet.  
>

Prince and Mercy I and Mercy II are no longer viable stand-alone 
theories and have been largely discredited. ::hangs head in shame::  
A few fragments of them have been rolled into Big Bang (the Biggest 
fragments, of course)  But for the sake of completeness, here they 
are:  

Prince of Darkness posits that Snape became a DE in part because he 
believed the pack of lies Voldemort was pedaling.  Snape believed 
he'd be valued for his unusual package of skills, that he'd be in 
Voldemort's inner circle, blah, blah, blah.  It turned out that 
Voldemort treated Snape like a flunky, and Snape was not liking the 
killing and torturing as much as he had hoped, so he defected.  
Prince of Darkness envisions a climactic scene in which Voldemort is 
mistreating Snape, which leads Snape to finally go back to Dumbledore.

Mercy I is some debunked idea that Snape owed Lily a life-debt.  I 
have no idea what possessed me to propose this.

Mercy II, however, is alive and well and has been incorporated as a 
central plank of Big Bang.  Not only that, Mercy II has the mild but 
always-wavering approval of George, the last time I checked.  The 
idea there is that Snape converted because of his life debt to 
James.  DE life was not all it was cracked up to be, but Snape 
figured he would have to live with his decision to be a DE.  Once 
can't just bounce back and forth between Voldemort and Dumbledore on 
a whim, after all.  But when Harry was born, Snape learned Voldemort 
was going to kill James and Harry (or perhaps Snape was assigned this 
job himself).  Snape simply couldn't go through with this, though he 
would have secretly enjoyed killing James.  The life debt to James 
prevented Snape from even assisting in James' death.  Snape *had* to 
leave the DEs for that reason.

Kimberly asks:

> Is there room for much cross-believing?  
> Can one be a "Big GeorgiePOPS", for example?

Heck, why not?  It's a cafeteria plan.  There is certainly room for 
assembling your own backstory.  If you do, please share.  :-)

That said, the Big Bangers feel an obligation of full disclosure to 
those who may be tempted to board.  Our SHIP is not a traditional 
SHIP, a tugboat, a catamaran, a rowboat or even a jetski.  No, Big 
Bang is a destroyer.  Theories that are not Big, theories that 
characters are motivated by an attack of conscience or nerves are 
known to us as Duds.  They have no potential ever to generate a Big 
Bang and so must be left on the dock or stored in the brig until they 
are sufficiently powerful to be brought on deck.

Cindy (thinking that George is really a very sensitive, needy soul 
deep down and is simply insecure, but definitely not promiscuous)




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Thu Feb 21 20:21:21 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:21:21 -0000
Subject: Cindy, have Mercy -- and Mercy II!    (was: bangers)
In-Reply-To: <a53in6+qp38@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a53ks1+rbr8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35563

Cindy said:
> Dumbledore gives Snape a good twinkling and can just 
> *tell* that Snape is sincere.  Well, if Dumbledore is such a good 
> judge of character, why was Peter able to spy for a whole year< 

Hmmm, Dumbledore gives Snape a good twinkling.  Sounds kinky. 

My theory on this is that *sometimes* Dumbeldore gets a strong 
feeling that someone is telling the truth, and thus trusts the 
person, but other times just isn't sure.  I don't think he's 
omniscient.  

Cindy also said:
> Mercy I is some debunked idea that Snape owed Lily a life-debt.  I 
> have no idea what possessed me to propose this...
> Mercy II, however, is alive and well ...the idea there is that
> Snape converted because of his life debt to James<

Wait a minute, Cindy!  Didn't you propose that Snapes owes 
*Dumbledore* a life debt?  Because Dumbledore could have killed him, 
but spared him instead?  I thought that was Mercy, or Mercy II. 

Kimberly asked:
> > Is there room for much cross-believing?  
> > Can one be a "Big GeorgiePOPS", for example?

And Cindy said:
> Heck, why not?  It's a cafeteria plan.  <

I think at this point, modular Snapetheories may not only be 
possible, they may be *necessary*.  It's too complicated to keep 
track of things otherwise.  It's a lot easier to debate one *part* of 
a Snapetheory (like, an Ambush, or Snape loving Lily, or Snape 
joining the DEs due to the Prank) than it is try to keep all these 
grand theories straight and debate entire theories at once. 

Can I have some mash with my bangers?

Judy 




From moongirlk at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 21 21:51:11 2002
From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:51:11 -0000
Subject: Bangers and their bangs (was: A Credo For George (SHIP))
In-Reply-To: <a53in6+qp38@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a53q4f+q3fn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35564

I said: 
> > The ambush thing... it just doesn't make any sense to me.  Not 
that I 
> > don't think there could be an ambush, but I don't think that: 
> > 
> > 1.Dumbledore would require such a thing.  He doesn't exact any 
> > similar kind of proof from Harry, Sirius, Ginny, etc. in the 
books, 
> > and it's not consistent with his character in my mind.
> 

Cindy, my fellow figure-skating fan replied:
> True, Dumbledore doesn't make Harry, Sirius or Ginny do anything 
> dramatic to prove their loyalty.  But why should he?  Ginny is a 
> little kid who was clearly possessed.  Harry never did anything 
evil 
> that would require that he prove his loyalty to Dumbledore.  As for 
> Sirius, Sirius could change back and forth into an animagus to 
> demonstrate his innocence.  

I wasn't referring to them proving their loyalty, but that he didn't 
require something from them to prove that their stories (some of 
which sounded rather bizzarre) were true.  He tends to trust people, 
often to the point of allowing baddies right in under his own roof.  
And I think he does this by considered choice.  I think part of 
Dumbledore's M.O. is that he gets people's best by expecting the best 
of them.  Sometimes it backfires (like with Quirrel, Crouch/Moody, 
etc.), but overall it has worked out well for him (like with Hagrid, 
the trio, the Marauders, and here I'll put Snape).  I think 
Dumbledore had his reasons for believing Snape was sincere (I don't 
have a theory of my own as to what they are yet), but more than that 
he chose to believe *in* Snape and it's that choice that has cemented 
Snape's loyalty to him, since nobody else has ever dared do such a 
thing.  

And to my other point...:
> 
> Kimberly again:
> 
> > 2.An ambush would necessarily prove anything.  Someone else 
(can't 
> > remember who - sorry!) has already said that V wouldn't mind 
> >setting 
> > some of his people up to get Snape in Dumbledore's camp as a 
spy.  
> > What's more, setting up your former compatriots doesn't seem the 
> >best 
> > way to prove that you wouldn't do the same to the current.  
> 

...Cindy replied:

> Maybe the best defense is a good offense on this one.  Let's say 
> Snape walked into Dumbledore's office, burst into tears, bawling 
> about his Love of Lily, and begging to be allowed back into 
> Dumbledore's camp.  He even gives Dumbledore all of his old tear-
> stained pictures of Lily to prove the strength of his love.  
> (Ewwww!).  Dumbledore gives Snape a good twinkling and can just 
> *tell* that Snape is sincere.  Well, if Dumbledore is such a good 
> judge of character, why was Peter able to spy for a whole year, 
right 
> under Dumbledore's nose?  Dumbledore suspected there was a spy in 
his 
> camp; why didn't he just interview everyone and twinkle at them 
until 
> he got to Peter?
> 

To which I counter... huh?  Twinkle at him?  
Ok, I do actually understand what you mean, but... I've never (ever 
ever ever) been of the belief that Dumbledore is omniscient.  I don't 
think he can "twinkle at" people (although it sounds really cute!) 
and know their thoughts and motivations.  I *do* think he's a pretty 
good judge of character, but I shamelessly hope that he's not 
revealed to be a mind-reader or something.  That just squicks me.  
Blech!  I'm not saying, either, that Snape provides no tangible proof 
of his change of heart (nor that he necessarily does), only that I 
don't think an ambush would be the proof, or that that would be the 
kind of proof that would impress Dumbledore.  

> The answer, in my view, is that Dumbledore can't smoke out a spy 
that easily.  

So then here we agree.

> Accepting Snape's ambush of his best friends wouldn't be a 
> 100% guarantee that Snape's conversion was true, but it was sure 
> better than nothing.  It also has the fringe benefit of taking out 
> several dangerous opposition soldiers at the same time.  

But if D were all excited about taking out enemy soldiers, why would 
he praise Harry for sparing Pettigrew?  I don't have an answer for 
that, but it seems strange.

<snip descriptions of Mercy I and Prince> 

> Mercy II, however, is alive and well and has been incorporated as a 
> central plank of Big Bang.  Not only that, Mercy II has the mild 
but 
> always-wavering approval of George, the last time I checked.  The 
> idea there is that Snape converted because of his life debt to 
> James.  DE life was not all it was cracked up to be, but Snape 
> figured he would have to live with his decision to be a DE.  Once 
> can't just bounce back and forth between Voldemort and Dumbledore 
on 
> a whim, after all.  But when Harry was born, Snape learned 
Voldemort 
> was going to kill James and Harry (or perhaps Snape was assigned 
this 
> job himself).  Snape simply couldn't go through with this, though 
he 
> would have secretly enjoyed killing James.  The life debt to James 
> prevented Snape from even assisting in James' death.  Snape *had* 
to 
> leave the DEs for that reason.

I think I could buy Mercy II as a possibility, but I'd make it a part 
of the gradual George-like change of heart.  Except that it seems 
kinda iffy to fit it into the timeline.  Hmmm... will have to mull it 
over.

I also like that Steady State theory.  Hmmm.  I think I'll take 
Steady George with some little whispy bangs.  Big Bangs give me '80s 
flashbacks.

kimberly
liking the cafeteria-style theorizing




From abced99 at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 21 22:03:13 2002
From: abced99 at hotmail.com (abced99420)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:03:13 -0000
Subject: HP vs Will Stanton
In-Reply-To: <a526si+mf03@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a53qr1+ceud@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35565

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> wrote:
> Oh, so that was the series I wanted to read...
 
The Dark is Rising series is definitely a good read--my personal 
favorites are the 1st and 3rd books, the ones set in Cornwall.

> But one I saw in sci-fi film: A group of people was trapped in 
their 
> house, some odd metal all around it, and there's some odd green 
stuff 
> inside-- answer? The people were in a *doll-house* of a giantic 
green 
> girl, whose brother had left a lollipop inside and put the house 
into 
> a heating pipe! (So the green lollipol melted...)

That sounds pretty interesting actually, what's the name of the film? 
THe kind of ending I'm talking about is the "and it was all just a 
dream" kind. I think these endings are cop-outs on the author's part 
because it frees the author from having to convincingly explain their 
magical world's existance, and also frees them from having to show 
how the characters deal with being aware of/existing in two worlds. 
The Dream Ending is, IMO, an easy way out of justinfying the author's 
fantasy world. I don't think JKR will do this because her wizarding 
world is so well thought out in most aspects, including, I'm sure, 
how it is connected to the muggle world in more ways than we've seen 
before. 
cheers!
abced99





From john at walton.vu  Thu Feb 21 23:17:47 2002
From: john at walton.vu (John Walton)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 23:17:47 +0000
Subject: ADMIN: Moderated Members' Posts Going Astray?
Message-ID: <B89B309B.ADAC%john@walton.vu>

No: HPFGUIDX 35566

Hello from the Hexquarters!

In between our cavorting with Veelas and nude Quidditch players *grin*,
we've noticed that at least one post which has been approved for release to
the list has gone completely astray. If you've sent in a post within the
past day and it hasn't shown up and you haven't received a "Message Not
Approved" message, please do drop the Mods a line at
hpforgrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com, and we'll yell at Yahoo for you.

In the meantime, please feel free to resend your message if it has
disappeared. We'll give it our immediate attention.

Cheers,

--John
__________________________________
John, Mod With Rock #47
For the HPforGrownups Moderator Team
HPforGrownups-Owner at yahoogroups.com

Please read our Admin Files, particularly the VFAQ and Netiquette files!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin




From muellem at bc.edu  Thu Feb 21 23:35:00 2002
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 23:35:00 -0000
Subject: US & UK editions,
In-Reply-To: <a53dk6+rf42@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a54074+acr2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35567

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "joanne0012" <Joanne0012 at a...> wrote:
> The very fact that ANY substitutions were made and British language 
was 
> changed for the American kids DOES mean that they were "dumbed 
down."
I don't understand why changing obvious British colloquialisms for 
American colloquialisms would be considered "dumbing down".  When they 
translated HP to German or Russian, I am sure that certain passages 
and "slang" were changed to reflect that culture.  Jeez, even in 
America, certain words have different meanings depending on where you 
live.  I don't think changing the word jumper to sweater was so 
God-awful and compromised the integrity of the HP series.  I mean, a 
jumper in America is a ladies dress -- and doubt that Harry is a 
cross-dresser. Even though the "primary" language in Britain & America 
is English, there a lot of differences in our slang -- for example, 
loo for bathroom, lift for elevator, randy -- well,er, all of you 
Brits know what randy means! 
Although I do agree that the title of the 1st book should not have 
changed.  There is an explaination of what the stone is; the prefix of 
said stone did not really have to change.

cole(who does do her research on words she doesn't know and is not a 
dumbed down American)





From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 21 23:50:44 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 23:50:44 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: US & UK editions,
Message-ID: <F108HPXUI2P2uvDCr2P00021206@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35568

Quoth Cole:
>I don't understand why changing obvious British colloquialisms for
American colloquialisms would be considered "dumbing down".

I can't speak for all umpteen million of us, but those of us in the United 
States who are also Anglophiles tend to be sulky when we find out that we've 
missed out on the 'authentic experience' of a book because it has been 
edited. I'm 100% American citizen, and I really ended up peeved when I 
learned how much had been changed. The title really was unnecessary, but for 
someone like myself, any changes were unnecessary.

So, 'dumbing down' really only qualifies in the change of the title. That 
implied that Americans aren't literate enough to understand just what the 
Philosopher's Stone is supposed to be. The rest of it, at least on my part, 
is nothing but frustration over what we see as unnecessary changes.

Don't even get me *started* about the changes in the movie! Why on *earth* 
did they have Hagrid say he got Fluffy from 'an Irish chappie'? It ruins the 
hidden joke *completely*...okay...<sheepish look>...I'll stop now...

J

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com





From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 21 18:03:23 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:03:23 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marauders learning animagi; Lupin's animal form?
Message-ID: <F129SmqZGUTwSIQK9VP0000cd7d@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35569

Gwen asked:
>1. Does the fact that Remus is a werewolf adversely effect or somehow
change his nature sufficiently to render Animagus transformation moot
(i.e., he'll become a wolf)?;
>2. To what extent does the wolf dictate his true animal form? Is it
possible that he could in fact transform at will into some other
animal, and if so, which animal? What would it reveal about his character?

This really intrigues me. My initial, gut reaction says that, were he to 
have started his work towards becoming an animagus when he was a boy, he 
might well have been able to transform into something other than a wolf, 
something that better suited his nature.

If, on the other hand, he were to attempt to become an animagus now, after 
years of suffering through becoming the wolf, he might well be locked into 
that, as it has become such an inherent part of his psyche. Again, just my 
opinion.

Of course, it could go the other direction, where his revulsion over hiw 
lupine side forces his animagus form to be something docile and 
unthreatening. Bunny rabbit, anyone?

J

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





From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 21 22:44:45 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:44:45 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Bangers and their bangs (was: A Credo For George (SHIP))
Message-ID: <F76ON6xQPFnaxgFa7o20000e3e4@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35570

I believe it was Cindy that said:
>>Accepting Snape's ambush of his best friends wouldn't be a 100% guarantee 
>>that Snape's conversion was true, but it was sure better than nothing.  It 
>>also has the fringe benefit of taking out several dangerous opposition 
>>soldiers at the same time.

Followed by Kimberly:
>But if D were all excited about taking out enemy soldiers, why would he 
>praise Harry for sparing Pettigrew?  I don't have an answer for that, but 
>it seems strange.

What if, just a conjecture here, it wasn't just up to Dumbledore when Snape 
came back to the Light? What if Dumbledore was ready to give the man another 
chance, remembering the bright young man that he'd help to teach years 
before, but somebody else, say Moody or that straight-shooting Frank 
Longbottom, declared that they'd not beleive that Snape wasn't a double 
until he'd given them something wildly juicy?

That gives us Dumbledore as good-hearted believer in the light side of human 
nature, plus all the family fun of a bloody ambush!

J

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





From sapphire at happyfunland.net  Thu Feb 21 01:34:58 2002
From: sapphire at happyfunland.net (Sapphire)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:34:58 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Potter vs. Will Stanton
References: <20020220234402.12755.qmail@web13908.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000901c1ba77$fb6947e0$6401a8c0@gobbles>

No: HPFGUIDX 35571

The Dark is Rising Series is my absolute favorite from childhood. I still reread them, 
and have gone through three sets of books. :-) I had a rough childhood, and these 
books got me through in a way..I would dream about being an Old One who had the
power to fix what was wrong...even though Will didn't really deal with matters of the
mortal men, it was still a nice dream. The only thing that bothers me now as an adult
is the almost cold attitude that the Old Ones take towards humanity. I always thought
it was sad that Will was so isolated from his own family after he found out, and as he got
further on in the battle. I didn't want him to be alone, but many times, great heros end up
being alone, it's part of the price. There are definitely parallels, and many differences as well.
Cooper drew heavily on Arthurian legend, and various pagan practices from the old times, 
which is one of the reasons I loved the books so much. But I could identify with Will on some
level. He was a child who was thrown into an adult world and aged before his time..I can relate
to that. Harry seems more light-hearted than DiR, at least now it is, I laughed more while reading
these books, even as the dangers become more grave. Harry has his own life to worry about, but
Will had the fate of the entire world in his hands. Of course, I believe that Harry will ultimately be
the only one who can kill Voldemort, so it may work out the same way. I don't see as much 
mythology in the HP series. While Harry's journey seems to be an adverture, Will's quests 
were more burdens..the burden to save humanity from the Dark Side. Will had a loving family,
yet had to hide who he really was from them, and serve his higher purpose alone, while Harry
was alone to begin with because of the evil in the world...his journey seems to be heading toward
a better life (eventually) than the one he had. I always felt sad for Will in the end for some reason.

Sapphire


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





From muellem at bc.edu  Thu Feb 21 18:43:21 2002
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:43:21 -0000
Subject: US & UK editions,
In-Reply-To: <a53dk6+rf42@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a53f49+6nc5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35572

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "joanne0012" <Joanne0012 at a...> wrote
> 
> The very fact that ANY substitutions were made and British language 
was 
> changed for the American kids DOES mean that they were "dumbed 
down."
 
Uhmm, why is taking what is British colloquialisms and translating it 
to American colloquialisms consider "dumbed down"?  I mean, when they 
translate the English version to Germain or Russian, I am sure certain 
meanings have to be translated according to that culture.  Jeez, even 
in certain parts of America, words can have different meanings.  I do 
agrees that the title of the 1st book should not have changed, but I 
don't think that changing jumper to sweater was such a God-awful 
thing.  Cause over on this side of the Atlantic, a jumper is a 
dress...Just like knickers are underwear over in Britain, they are 
like old-fashioned golfing pants.  Like the word randy doesn't mean a 
thing over here, but in Britain,...well, er, you know already know 
what that means!

Cole 





From midwife34 at aol.com  Fri Feb 22 01:07:17 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 01:07:17 -0000
Subject: Sirius and the Dark Mark
In-Reply-To: <a535lp+qlog@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a545k5+bjtu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35573

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hollygolightly95" 
<miss_hollygolightly at h...> wrote:
> Greetings from London, England.
> Apologies if this has been discussed before (couldn't find it in 
the 
> archives...)
> 
> If all Death Eaters have the Dark Mark on their arm, it should be 
> easy enough to identify them. If Sirius never was a Death Eater, he 
> doesn't carry the mark, so why was that not enough to prove his 
> innocence? Why was he sent to Azkaban without even a trial?
> 
>Hi there, I asked more or less the same thing when I put out a 
possible theory of Sirius being a traitor in the future.One of the 
key things was whether all deatheaters had the dark mark or not,and 
did Sirius have one? Evidently he does not have the mark as someone 
from the lists reminded me of the scene in the cave where Harry tells 
him about the marks, and Sirius is puzzled by it. I personally, think 
it would be stupid to brand every single one of your followers, like 
the DE's, if you ever hope to have an inside person at Hogwarts to 
gather information. 

Jo Ellen




From ftah3 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 21 15:06:29 2002
From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 15:06:29 -0000
Subject: Circumstances of Lucius' death (was Acronym for George, Draco if Lucius died
In-Reply-To: <a531p1+5rpt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a532dl+o6n3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35574

marinafrants wrote:
> I think a lot would depend on the circumstances of Lucius' death.  
If
> he was killed by one of the obvious good guys, like Lupin or
> Dumbledore, it might push Draco to LV's side irrevocably.  On the
> other hand, Voldemort could kill Lucius himself, for insufficient
> loyalty, or incompetence, or some similar reason; Voldemort seems
> temperamental that way.  In which case Draco might decide that maybe
> joining up with this guy isn't such a hot idea.  The question then 
is,
> would Draco take this as an opportunity to join Dumbledore's side, 
or
> would he strike out on his own and become a loose cannon?  Or, 
seeing
> how Draco has not shown himself to be particularly brave, would he
> just crawl under a convenient rock and try to lie low until this 
whole
> current unpleasantness blows over?

Hmm, I think my memory might be failing me.  Has Voldemort ever 
killed his own for tempermental reasons?  I can't seem to remember 
that happening.  Left 'em high and dry, sure (Quirrell comes to 
mind), but not offed them.  In fact, he seems wisely forgiving;  
cruel, but not lethal, to his followers.

And I don't really see him killing Lucius except for a very, very, 
VERY good reason.  If Voldemort killed him in a tempermental fit, it 
would bring to mind bad fictional villains who kill off their 
followers for no good reason, by which making me think, dude, you're 
killing the people you depend on *for no good reason!*  The Idiot 
Villain, lol.  Voldemort doesn't strike me as an Idiot Villain.

So if Lucius was to die, I think it's more likely to be at the hands 
of one of the good guys.  

But you know, regardless, I don't think Draco would change for the 
better.  He'd suddenly be the man of his family, and the heir to the 
Malfoy legacy both in terms of money and of morality and power (or 
delusions thereof).  Imho, he'd become an even bigger fiend.

Mahoney




From plumeski at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 22 00:42:19 2002
From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:42:19 -0000
Subject: US & UK editions,
In-Reply-To: <a54074+acr2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5445b+rmqg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35575

"colebiancardi" <muellem at b...> wrote:
> I don't think changing the word jumper to sweater was so 
> God-awful and compromised the integrity of the HP series.  I mean, 
a 
> jumper in America is a ladies dress -- and doubt that Harry is a 
> cross-dresser. Even though the "primary" language in Britain & 
America 
> is English, there a lot of differences in our slang -- for example, 
> loo for bathroom, lift for elevator, randy -- well,er, all of you 
> Brits know what randy means! 

The one major issue I have with this position is that no publisher 
has ever seen the need to "correct" UK editions of any American book 
I've ever read. OK, So King, Grisham and all the other blockbuster 
writers are marketed at an adult audience so it's accepted that we 
adult Brits can manage. But American children's and youth literature 
(which admittedly isn't that big over here because we have a very 
rich local tradition) has never seen the need when publishing in 
Britain to change a single word.

So, the odd phrase isn't immediately comprehensible, or the odd word 
has a different meaning. Did I know what "candy" meant when I read 
the Bobbsey Twins as a child? No. Why shouldn't an American child 
learn what "sweets" are? To my mind, the British word is actually 
more descriptive...

This is "dumbing down" at it very, very basest. It's patronising to 
the (American) reader who (it is assumed) can't be bothered to think 
that British English may be different or to do a bit of research into 
what the word or phrase means. The differences between our languages 
are not that different. If part of the appeal of the Potterverse to 
Americans is that it opens a window on a different culture, then 
surely it should also open a window on that culture's vocabulary?

> Although I do agree that the title of the 1st book should not have 
> changed.  There is an explaination of what the stone is; the prefix 
of 
> said stone did not really have to change.

The less said about that, the better. I've been angry about it when I 
first learnt of it, and my ire has never subsided. I'm not saying 
that the word "Philosopher" means any more to the average British kid 
(or even, let's admit it, adult), but as you say, the concept is 
explained very well in the book and prior knowledge is irrelevant. As 
for putting people off reading it, well.... Mr Levine has a very low 
appreciation for his target audience.

Incidentally, does anyone know if (apart from the title of the first 
book), any changes were made to the American text of Philip 
Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy? (it should be noted that even 
the British editions are published by Scolastic).

-- 
GulPlum aka Richard Sliwa










From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Fri Feb 22 01:57:31 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 01:57:31 -0000
Subject: Circumstances of Lucius' death (was Acronym for George, Draco if Lucius died
In-Reply-To: <a532dl+o6n3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a548ib+okda@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35576

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ftah3" <ftah3 at y...> wrote:
> marinafrants wrote:
> And I don't really see him killing Lucius except for a very, very, 
> VERY good reason.  If Voldemort killed him in a tempermental fit, 
it 
> would bring to mind bad fictional villains who kill off their 
> followers for no good reason, by which making me think, dude, 
you're 
> killing the people you depend on *for no good reason!*  The Idiot 
> Villain, lol.  Voldemort doesn't strike me as an Idiot Villain.

Oh, I don't really imagine LV killing Lucius, either, I was just 
idly speculating.  But I have to admit that at the climax of GoF, 
Voldemort very much did strike me as the Idiot Villain.  He's got 
Harry helpless, tied to the gravestone, all he has to go is 
mutter "Avada Kedavra," and all his problems are over.  So what does 
he do?  First he gloats, then he has harry untied, and *gives him 
his wand back*.  At that point I was banging my head against the 
book and yelling, "You stupid shmuck, do you have any idea how many 
Evil Overlord Rules are you breaking?"

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From skelkins at attbi.com  Fri Feb 22 02:03:21 2002
From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 02:03:21 -0000
Subject: SHIP: Cupid's Snitch and Cupid's Quaffle
In-Reply-To: <a4pbm8+hk6f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a548tj+r39a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35577

"Pay close attention now," says Elkins, jostling the lever of the 
remote control in her hand as she squints out to sea at the tiny 
golden jetski skirting dangerously close to the jagged off-shore 
rocks.  "Because this is the really tricky part."

The unseasonably bright February sun glints off of the chrome of the 
Coast Guard Cruiser plowing its way through the waves towards the 
jetski.  It throws the detailing on the side of a fast-moving 
pleasure yacht into sharp relief, and casts a dull sheen on the inner 
tube bobbing innocently nearby.

"The thing that you must understand," says Elkins, frowning in 
concentration as these small craft begin to converge, "is that 
everything about this scenario is just utterly and completely 
*wrong.*  Characterization.  Wrong.  Motivation.  Wrong.  Spirit of 
Ca--"

She draws in a sharp breath as the jetski angles its way between two 
low rocks, barely visible beneath the waves, then lets it out, very 
slowly.

"Spirit of Canon," she repeats hoarsely, her hands now shaking 
slightly on the controls.  "Spirit of Canon.  Oh.  So.  *Wrong.*"

The Coast Guard Cruiser picks up speed as it nears its prey, weaving 
to one side to avoid the low-lying rocks, while the pleasure yacht, 
its passengers staring enthralled through their Omniscopes at the 
name 'Cupid's Snitch' engraved on the side of the jetski, veers a bit 
closer to the reef.  Elkins leans forward, hunched over her controls.

"But," she continues, a fine sheen of sweat now appearing on her 
forehead.  "But, but, but.  *But.*  If you combine all of these wrong 
elements just so, and then get the timing juuuuuuuuuuuuuust right..."

With a sudden convulsive motion, she slams the joystick away from 
her, while simultaneously jabbing down hard on the turbo button.  The 
tiny golden jetski surges forward, sending up a fine spray as it 
darts between the two larger and more cumbersome vessels, whose 
crewmembers have only a second to stare after it in amazement before 
they realize that they are now set on a collision course.  Their 
barked orders and panicked screams can only be faintly heard from 
shore as cruiser and yacht desperately maneuver to avoid one another, 
only to batter their hulls to pieces moments later on the 
treacherous off-shore rocks.  The inner tube flies into the air,
landing only a little worse for the wear on a large flat rock several 
yards away.  The jetski darts merrily off, out to open sea.

Elkins exhales hard and leans back against her rock, allowing the 
controls to fall from her hands.  After a moment, she turns to the 
younger mermaid sitting on the rock beside her and smiles.

"And *that,*" she concludes, with grim satisfaction.  "Is what we 
call the 'Wrong Ski Feint.'"  

"Would you believe," she asks, giggling suddenly as she gestures out 
at the jetski now bobbing its way across the waves.  "Would you 
*believe* that some people actually think that I'm out there riding 
*around* on that ridiculous thing?"

"But master," the younger mermaid objects, her voice muffled from 
deep within her scuba mask.  "Master..."

Elkins frowns.  "What?"

"I thought that we were supposed to be...well, you know.  Singing."

"*Singing*?"  Elkins snorts and rolls her eyes.  "*Singing*!  Oh, 
Grasshopper!  Sweetheart!  *Please!*  *This* is the twenty-first 
*century*!"

The tiny golden jetski flits off into the distance, soon to be lost 
once more to sight.

===============

Yes.  Erm.  Well.

Oh, dear.  

You see, naturally I am very touched -- truly touched and deeply 
flattered -- that so many people liked Cupid's Snitch so much, 
but...um...

Well, really now.  It hardly seems *plausible,* does it?  And surely 
someone must have noticed that every single direct canonical 
quotation cited in that message as "evidence" for the theory was 
really just cut-and-pasted directly from a previous 
C.U.P.I.D.S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R message -- yea, down to the very 
ellipses?

I don't know.  I really just don't know.  I pour my heart, my soul, 
my very *essence* into my Fourth Man theory, I offer *irreproachable* 
evidence that it is canonically RIGHT and TRUE, I beg and whine and 
wheedle and cajole, but does anyone believe me?  Nooooooooo.  But 
then I toss something like Cupid's Snitch into the air, and everyone 
leaps onto their broomsticks and starts riding hell-bent-for-leather
after it.  I don't get it.  I really just don't get it.

But I do feel that I owe a huge apology to Captain Charis Julia.  
Sorry, Captain. I meant only to poke playfully at your inner tube, 
not to send it spinning off into the eddies like that.  And while you 
were away taking your exams, too!  Here's hoping that they all went 
well.


Cap'n Charis Julia of the Good Ship C.U.P.I.D.S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. boomed 
out (while scowling and glaring menacingly at mutinous sailors):

> Elkins where did you come up with all of that? 

<Elkins nods respectfully at Captain Charis, then looks up 
innocently, an effect somewhat ruined by the suspicious twitching at 
the corner of her mouth>

Why, from my strictly irreproachable extrapolations from canon, of 
course.  SIR!

> Astounding! I take my hat of to you, really I do!  Unfortunately 
> however I don't buy a word of it. 

No.  Neither do I, not for a moment.  But it sure was fun while it 
lasted, wasn't it?

> Cupid's Snitch does not explain what all these theories set out to 
> explain in the first place, namely why did Snape cross over to the 
> sunny side of the street after all?

Oh.  Right.  That old thing.  

Well, as to that, I'm a Georgian, myself.  (Or...at least I *think* I 
am.  But that's an entirely different snarl of threads.)  But Cupid's 
Snitch was never intended to address that issue at all.  Cupid's 
Snitch was a direct response to Cindy's plea for some extra 
motivation for Sirius' Prank, and for Sirius and Snape's mutual 
loathing -- preferably one that would somehow involve the Unknown 
Damsel Florence.  

Now personally, I don't think that any additional motivation for 
hatred between these two men other than what has already been 
provided by canon is in the least bit necessary.  It makes perfect 
sense to me that they never liked each other to begin with, that the 
potential lethality of the Prank was a matter of pure and simple 
thoughtlessness on Sirius' part, that Dumbledore's reaction 
infuriated and disillusioned young Severus, that his conviction that 
Black really always *had* been by nature a murderer was confirmed in 
his own mind by later events, and that what happened at the end of 
PoA did absolutely nothing to make either of the two men like each 
other any better.  Here I am in full agreement with Pippin and 
Charis: what canon has already given us seems like *more* than enough 
to account for their mutual antipathy.  To my way of thinking,
anyway.  

But apparently some people just aren't satisfied with all of that.  
They must have more -- more, more, more!  So Cupid's Snitch was my 
highly tongue-in-cheek attempt to Give The People What They Want, 
with a good deal of really sappy SHIPpiness thrown in, just for good 
measure.

I didn't really think that anyone was going to go *chasing* after the 
damned thing.


Cap'n Tabouli of the Good Ship L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S., showed admirable
restraint by starting off with the deliciously-understated comment:

> My main issues with it are character based (and therefore rather 
> subjective). 

<much laughter>

What, you mean to say that you *don't* think that Sirius would have 
trembled in fear at the prospect of Peter disapproving of his choice 
of date?  Or that the future Mrs. Lestrange would have gone skulking 
around behind the greenhouses to avoid exposure?  Or that she would 
have then gone trailing all puppy-dog-like after Severus, pestering 
him to teach her some really cool curses?  Why ever not?

Yes, of course the characterization is appalling.  But then, you 
couldn't honestly expect someone as perverse as I am to resist that 
temptation, now, could you?  Or to refrain from recasting the odious 
Lestranges as the post-Yule-Ball Ron and Hermione?  Or to allow to 
pass by unchecked the opportunity to raise the spectre of a 
non-gone-bad version of the Ever-So-Evil Mrs. Lestrange, padding 
around barefoot in her kitchen and baking cookies for the kiddies?  I 
mean, for heaven's sake, woman, do you think that I am made out of 
*stone*?  

But an awful lot of people seem to have really really *liked* Cupid's 
Snitch, and not as parody either, but as speculation (someone 
mentioned the possibility of putting it on the list of "predictions 
for Book Five," for example).  And that was...unexpected.  To say the 
least.

I'm beginning to suspect that Cupid's Snitch's appeal must have had 
something to do with that F.L.A.B.B.E.R.G.A.S.T.E.D. or 
L.O.S.T.L.I.V.E.S. aspect of the tale: many people do seem to find 
something about the notion of an Embittered-Due-To-Lack-of-Luck-
In-Love-With-Sirius-Black Florence Lestrange well-nigh irresistable.  
I think that we may be running into a bit of Sympathy for the Devil 
here, no?

So let's see if we can salvage Cupid's Snitch, shall we?  Is there a 
*defensible* version of this backstory that can (a) manage to retain 
the same appeal while (b) remaining sufficiently perverse to hold 
even my interest?

I think that there is.  We can call this one, er..."Cupid's 
Quaffle."  

Cupid's Quaffle allows the characters to behave more or less as 
themselves, while still (I hope) retaining the basic SHIPpiness and 
Sympathy-For-the-Devil-ness that made people like Cupid's Snitch so 
much.  And, of course, it has every bit as much direct canonical 
support <snicker> as Cupid's Snitch had.

As an added bonus, I've also thrown in a bit of backstory to provide 
additional answers to such perennial favorites as "Why was everyone, 
even Dumbledore, so willing to believe that Sirius Black was a mad 
killer?" and "Why did Sirius get so very hysterical when Peter framed 
him?" 

(I haven't the slightest idea *why* people always want more answers 
to these questions, mind -- again, I think that canon provides plenty 
of answers to both of them just fine as it is -- but people always 
*do* seem to want more reasons, so Cupid's Quaffle is happy to 
provide.)  

Cupid's Quaffle also accomodates LOLLIPOPSers by allowing for a 
reading in which Snape's relationship to Florence is purely platonic -
- thus permitting him to remain creepily and solely romantically 
fixated on Lily Evans, if such is the reader's desire.  

And finally -- But wait! There's more! -- Cupid's Quaffle can also 
allow for a (slightly altered) rendition of Tabouli's marvellous 
Seduction of Barty Crouch.  This is because as far as I can tell, I 
may well be young Barty's *only* true fan on this entire list.
I am therefore thrilled to support anything that might make him more 
sympathetic to other readers.  

So here is Cupid's Quaffle.  Cupid's Quaffle permits Sirius to be 
cool, handsome, charismatic, popular and impulsive, and it allows 
Florence, as the future Mrs. Lestrange, to be passionate, obsessive, 
tenacious and defiant.

There is, however, one very important point of characterization on 
which Cupid's Quaffle absolutely depends, and that is this:

At the age of fifteen, Florence was *not* Dead Sexy.

Tabouli wrote:

> More likely her loyalty to Slytherin would preclude such a 
> relationship in the first place (unless fuelled by some sinister, 
> manipulative ulterior motive), or, if his Dead Sexiness was too 
> much to resist, she would have seduced him, cool, sultry and 
> unashamed. And in public, in front of the whole of Slytherin *and* 
> Gryffindor, if necessary to prove her point. 

At twenty-two, perhaps.  But at fifteen?  Naaaah.

Because fifteen-year-old Florence isn't either sultry or seductive.  I
mean, think about it.  Do we really believe the Mrs. Lestrange we see
in Pensieve as someone who was considered desirable as an adolescent?
Does a fifteen year old girl who was in the habit of wrapping the 
boys around her little finger through her seductive and feminine 
wiles really grow up to become a woman who curses two people into 
a state of insanity out of sheer enraged frustration that they can't 
tell her what she wants to know?

Oh, I don't think so.

No, I don't think that she was Dead Sexy at all in her youth.  Far 
from it.  In fact, I think that what we were looking at there in 
Pensieve must have been one of Tabouli's favorite types of people: an 
Ex-Victim Turned Bully.  

So in Cupid's Bludger, Dead Sexy Florence is replaced by late-bloomer 
Florence.  Florence, who values the opinion of her male Slytherin 
friends so highly because she just doesn't *have* any female friends 
(all of the other Slytherin girls in her year are really caught up in 
this whole "Marry High, Marry Young, Breed Pureblooded Children For 
the Cause" schtick, see, while Flo's a rabid feminist).  Florence,
who hasn't yet learned that charm she'll use later in life to take 
all the frizz out of her hair and make it all lustrous and shiny (an 
entire bottle of that Sleekeasy junk would surely do the trick, but 
that's *far* too much work for everyday, and besides, fifteen-year-
old Flo would rather *die* than suck up to the Patriarchy like 
that).  Florence, who doesn't laugh at the boys' jokes unless she
really thinks that they're funny.  Florence, whose heavy-lidded eyes 
strike all of the boys her age as weird-looking and strange, and Not 
At All Attractive.  (Yes, they are mad.  They're also only fifteen 
years old, so they haven't yet developed good taste.)

In short, while Florence may be passionate, obsessive, tenacious, 
defiant, and proud to the point of self-destruction, one thing she 
*isn't* is considered a "good catch."

So why is cool, charismatic, handsome, popular, impulsive (but not 
always terribly sensitive to other people's feelings) Sirius Black 
snogging with her behind the greenhouses?

Well, because as Dead Sexy as he may be, Sirius Black is still a 
fifteen year old boy.  And Florence is *willing.*  And at the age of 
fifteen, willing is very very important.

Oh, now, just stop that, Sirius fans.  He doesn't *mean* to be toying 
with the poor girl's affections, all right?  He just isn't 
particularly thinking.  You *know* how good he can be at that "not 
particularly thinking" thing that he does.

And besides, it's not as if he dislikes her or anything.  He thinks 
old Flo's a pretty good egg, for a Slytherin.  He enjoys her company 
well enough.  She's clever and opinionated and sort of interesting, 
and he has no clue that she's actually kinda twisted.  But it's 
hardly Twoo Wuv.  It's not even True Love.  It's not anything even 
close to that.  Not by a long shot.  Not at all.

So Sirius isn't meeting poor Florence behind the greenhouses because 
it's a big clandestine Romeo and Juliet type thing.  No, he's meeting 
her there because that's just what you *do* when you meet girls for 
little adolescent snogging sessions at Hogwarts.  That's where 
everyone goes.  It's just what's done.  And he's not exactly 
*hiding* it from his friends.  He just hasn't thought to mention it, 
that's all.  After all, why would he?  It's not like he's in *love* 
with the girl or anything.  They're not even dating.  They're just 
kinda messing around for kicks every now and then, that's all.  And 
besides, it's not like she's the *only* girl he ever takes back 
there.

But Florence thinks it's serious.

<pause for wince>  

No.  Er...well, you know what I mean.  She doesn't get it.  She, too, 
is only fifteen years old, remember, and she's led a very sheltered 
life.  So it doesn't occur to her that meeting someone every once in 
a while for smoochies behind the greenhouses, while never actually 
being seen with them in public, doesn't constitute a real 
relationship.  As far as she's concerned, this is It.  She's found 
it.  True Love.  'Till Death Do We Part Love.  It's the first grand 
passion of her young life, and it's a *secret* passion to boot, 
because she really *is* keeping it a secret from her Slytherin buds.  
It's not just that they wouldn't approve (although they wouldn't).  
It's more that...well, it's *hers.*  It's *her* Grand Passion.  It's 
special.  It's secret.  And besides, it's more romantic that way.

Yeah, she's young.  And she's also a tad obsessive.  As well as 
loyal, passionate, committed, slightly prone to self-delusion and 
self-aggrandizement...but then, we already knew all that about her, 
didn't we?

So that's the deal.  There they are, Sirius and Florence, kissing 
behind the greenhouses. Nosy Bertha Jorkins -- the original "Cupid's 
Snitch" -- catches them at it and begins to make mock...and it is 
*Florence* who hexes her, the instant that her back is turned.

Well, of course it is!  It must have been Florence all along.  After 
all, would Sirius really hex some girl for teasing him for *kissing* 
someone, of all things?  I doubt it.  But Florence would, because 
she's proud and prickly and vindictive and (at this stage in her 
life) insecure, and she cannot *bear* being mocked.  And besides, she 
*likes* hexing people.  

So Florence hexes Bertha.  Sirius, alarmed by the suddenly feral 
expression on the face of his ordinarily tranquil-seeming companion --
 not to mention her apparent readiness to keep *on* hexing Bertha, 
even though she's certainly more than made her point already -- 
snatches her wand out of her hands and is still standing there
holding it when Bertha finally manages to recover enough to turn 
around to see what has happened.  Bertha goes running off to 
Dumbledore, squealing about how Sirius Black hexed her when all she 
*did* was tease him for kissing Florence behind the greenhouses, and 
pretty soon everyone in the entire school knows the story.  

And so you see, this is yet another reason that Dumbledore didn't 
find it all that hard to believe that Sirius Black was a Big Bad Dark 
wizard, and a raving murderer to boot.  Just look at how he behaved 
at the age of fifteen!  Clearly bad-tempered. Clearly capable of 
nastiness.  And this is also part of the reason that Sirius
began laughing madly when Peter left him there in the street, wand 
out and dead muggles everywhere.  It wasn't merely because his best 
friends had been murdered, it was all his fault, he'd just failed 
miserably in his attempt to avenge their deaths, and now he was going 
to be framed for the crime itself.  It wasn't merely because little
Peter had just snookered him with such utterly unexpected 
ruthlessness.  It wasn't merely because he was in such a completely 
hopeless situation.  No!  One might *think* that all this would 
be ample cause for wild laughter, but apparently it still isn't 
enough, so here you go: Sirius was *also* laughing because _he'd been 
had this way before._

What's that?  Why did Sirius never try to set anyone straight on what 
*really* happened, you ask?  Well, because he's chivalrous, that's 
why.  Good Guys Don't Rat People Out -- and they especially don't rat 
*girls* out.  Besides, he's popular with the staff and with the 
Headmaster, so they'll probably cut him more slack than they'd cut
Florence. And also, he's feeling kind of guilty over the whole 
affair.  He's got some idea of how Florence's Slytherin buds are 
likely to react when they find out that she's been Consorting With 
the Enemy; the situation is made even worse by the fact that her 
parents are in prison <nod to Tabouli>; and since the wizarding world 
is so weirdly socially conservative, Reputation is still a big issue 
for girls.  So why compound poor Florence's problems by exposing her 
as some sort of hex maniac on top of all that?

He's also feeling guilty because he knows that he's going to have to 
stop seeing her.  

It was that look in her eyes, you see.  Kinda spooked him that did.  
He always thought she was okay, really, but now he thinks there's 
something...well, something very *wrong* with the girl.  He doesn't 
really want to have anything more to do with her.

Hmmm?  What's that, Charis?

Charis:

> And one more thing: Florence must have been a splendid actress. 
> Sirius was so into her and never realized she was heading right 
> down the path that leads to You?Know?Who's front door? 

"Hey, guys, I've got a great idea!  Let's make *Peter* the Secret-
Keeper!"

No, Florence was never a good actress.  But she didn't need to be.  
This is Sirius Black we're talking about, remember.  He didn't have a 
clue.

But now he does.  He starts avoiding her until she confronts him, and 
then he just explains that maybe they shouldn't, um, see each other.  
Anymore.

He's kind of uncomfortable.  Florence reads his tone as pity.  She is 
struck by her Grand Realization: this guy never loved her.  He wasn't 
even *using* her, which she could at least respect.  No.  No, he 
*pitied* her.  Those were *Sympathy Snogs* they were sharing back 
there behind the greenhouses.  

The rest of the story is pretty much the same.  Florence, Loved and 
Abandoned by Black, Becomes EnRaged, Goes After Severus, and Turns 
Evil Deatheater.  Love of Sirius Turns Lestrange Into Voldemort's 
Evil Servant.  And all of that.

And you know, Severus doesn't even have to have a crush on her in 
this version.  He can just feel protective of her, as a manifestation 
of House loyalty.  (Gryffindors are too *good* to be seen with our 
girls in public, are they?  Our girls are only suitable for seducing 
in *secret,* are they?)  But it still has the same effect on
Sirius: leading him to suspect that Snape was responsible all along 
for Florence's unfortunate Dark tendencies. 

Charis wrote:

> It goes against all my instincts to accept that Sirius had a 
> girlfriend that went Wrong and that's really what my objections 
> boil down to.

Yeah, it went against all of Sirius' instincts as well.  That's why 
he had to convince himself that it must have been Snape's Bad 
Influence all along.

So we get the same basic hostility, the same underlying subconscious 
motive for Sirius' Prank, the same "Sirius Black corrupted one of 
*our* girls" thing for Snape, and so forth.

Now we only need to jump ahead a year or so to get Tabouli's 
Seduction of Barty Crouch scenario.  

Tabouli wrote:

> Maybe Barty was a good, upstanding, brilliant young Slytherin who 
> had the promise to become one of the house's most upstanding 
> graduates until he fell into the clutches of Florence Lestrange-to-
> be, who preyed on him for reasons of her own (getting close to the 
> son of the powerful wizard tipped to be the future Minister 
> of Magic and avenging her parents against Barty Senior... see
> below).

Sounds good to me.  Why not?

Now that Florence has already gained a certain degree of notoriety as 
a Fast Girl, she figures: why not live up to the reputation?  Might 
as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb, right?  Besides, then 
maybe Sirius will be sorry that he cast her aside.  So she decides to 
become Dead Sexy Evil Scheming Black Widow Florence.

(SHIPper types should like this part, because it allows for Florence 
to come back from the summer hols a Changed Girl, with her hair all 
different and dressing all sexy and making the boys' jaws drop in 
amazement and all the rest of that rot.)

I like wicked older teen Florence seducing sickly neurasthenic little 
Momma's Boy Barty to avenge her parents.  That's very appealing 
indeed.  The only difference here is that she goes after Barty as a 
*sixth* year, not as a fifth year, and he's fourteen, not thirteen, 
when he falls into her clutches -- 'cause otherwise it's just plain 
*sick.*  

And of course, in this version of the tale, Bertha Jorkins isn't the 
one who exposes the affair to Daddy.  That was probably Lestrange, 
undoubtedly acting on Florence's own orders.  After all, as Cindy 
wrote:

> She wants Mr. Lestrange, a man who knows how to keep his mouth shut 
> and do what he is told. Mr. Lestrange is a SYCOPHANT (are hen-
> pecked men welcome in SYCOPHANT?).

Society of Yes-Men, Cowards, Ostriches, Passive-Aggressives...

Yup!  Yes, they are.  Hen-pecked men are almost always passive
-aggressive.  And even if Lestrange isn't, then he can still claim
SYCOPHANTS membership under the umbrella category of "Abject 
Neurotics."

We're really very inclusive that way.


Tabouli wrote:

> Little did both Crouch Senior know, his actions played right into 
> Florence's hands. Barty Junior abandoned his last hope of ever 
> pleasing his father and set to rebellion in earnest. As his years 
> at Hogwarts slipped by, he progressed from snogging Dark Ladies to 
> torturing first years, hexing Gryffindors, and serving teachers 
> cursed pumpkin juice.

Oh, yes.  Yes indeedy.  He also took to ripping the tags off of all 
of the mattresses.  *And* to jaywalking.  The poor little tyke.

Hey, I know!  We can call this part of Cupid's Quaffle:

F.O.R.L.O.R.N.B.A.R.T.E.M.I.U.S. 

Florence, On the Rebound, Lured Our Reluctant Naif Barty, Avenging 
Relations by Tempting to Evil Mother's Innocent and Unsuspecting Son.


Deal?


So, er, where's the canon?

<Elkins collapses into a fit of coughing>

Oh, dear.  Yes.  Please do excuse me.  Something just caught in my 
throat there for a moment.

Well, the canonical evidence for Cupid's Quaffle is much the same as 
the canonical evidence for Cupid's Snitch, really.  We have:


(1) Mrs. Lestrange's mysterious namelessness, combined with 
Florence's mysterious mention.

Charis wrote:

> I agree that there must be a reason Mrs Lestrange's first name is 
> omitted. It struck me as odd from the very first time I read the 
> book. 

It's because she's Florence, I'm tellin' ya.  Florence!  Even 
Tabouli's willing to go with this one.  She's just holding off on the 
whole Flo-Has-A-History-With-Sirius thing.  But as to that...


(2) Sirius' strange omission of Mrs. Lestranges first *or* maiden 
name when he lists her as a member of Snape's old gang, the extent to 
which she seems "glossed."  

Tabouli wrote:

> You mean, rather like the way Snape snarls all the time about James 
> the arrogant Quidditch star and how much Harry resembles him, yet 
> avoids any mention of Lily? Or the way Hagrid gives away that 
> there's a very good reason for Snape to hate Harry and then hastily 
> changes the subject (though everyone else is happy to attribute 
> Snape's feelings to jealousy of James' Quidditch performance, a 
> well-known chick impressor)?? Or the way that Lily, though
> Harry's mother and therefore bound to be significant in some way 
> (as JKR has admitted), has been almost totally glossed over so far, 
> whereas James has had quite a lot of air time??? :-D

Well...yes, actually.  Almost *precisely* like that.  

So does that mean that you really *are* on board with the whole 
Sirius-Has-Some-History-With-Mrs.-Lestrange thing then, Tabouli? 

(Hey, have I ever once claimed *not* to believe that Snape had a 
thing for Lily?  No.  I have not.  You know why?  Because I'm almost 
certain that he did.  But that doesn't mean that I'm going clambering 
aboard that ship, mind.  Just 'cause I believe it to be canonical 
truth, that doesn't mean that I have to *like* it.)  

Charis agreed that it struck her as strange, but wrote:

> But it seems to me that it's more JKR trying to hide something than 
> Sirius. He passes by the name too flippantly for me to think it 
> means anything to him. . . . Sirius just ticks off the Lestranges 
> along with the rest of them. They're not even significantly placed: 
> not first, not last, just middle.

Which is equally suspicious, don't you think?  If not even more so?  
Given that what he's just been talking about there is Barty Crouch's 
trial, that he doesn't even *mention* the fact that the Lestranges 
were young Crouch's co-defendents (assuming, for the moment, that 
they really were), but instead just ticks them off, burying them 
right in the middle of the list?

He's glossing, I tell ya!  Glossing!  There's something there he 
doesn't want to think about!  Even Cindy's with me on this one!


(3) Dumbledore's Pensieve.  

Charis points out that Dumbledore's "But why, Bertha, why?" line 
there is *current* dialogue -- he's not saying it to Bertha in the 
Pensieve, but to himself/Harry, in the present day.  And she is quite 
right.  I had misremembered that scene.  Mea culpa.  

But surely this provides even *more* support for Cupid's Quaffle!  It 
means that we no longer need to stress Dumbledore's insight or his 
near-prophetic abilities or any of the sort of nonsense that so 
annoys both Cindy and Charis in order to view his regret there as 
twofold -- no, sorry, as *threefold!*  

He is speaking in the present day, having just dragged Harry back 
from the Lestrange/Crouch sentencing.  So it requires no great feat 
of foresight for his weariness and his regret there to be on behalf 
not only of Bertha, but also of Florence *and,* as Tabouli suggests, 
of young Barty himself as well.

The more regrets the merrier, that's what I always say.

And as additional canonical support for Cupid's Bludger, I will also 
offer:

(4) Sirius' evident sympathy for young Crouch in "Padfoot Returns," 
and his obvious horror at the boy's supposed "death."  He speaks of 
the event "dully" and "bitterly," and he doesn't look "remotely 
amused now."

"For a moment, the deadened look in Sirius' eyes became more 
pronounced than ever, as though shutters had closed behind them."

It's not just that he feels particular sympathy for Barty as a fellow 
victim of elder Crouch's rather dubious grasp of due process.  It's 
not just that the subject recalls unpleasant memories of Azkaban.  
No!  It's *also* that he suspects that Barty was taken in by scary 
Florence...just as *he* might have been.  It's a There But For the 
Grace of God thing.  And a guilt thing as well, for really, would any 
of that have happened at all, if he hadn't treated Florence in such a
cavalier fashion in the first place?  Who can say?


Pippin wants to know:

> But Florence...honestly, what kind of name is that for a Death 
> Eater?

Aw, come on.  It's a *perfect* name for a Death Eater.  You can't 
really expect every last one of them to have a name like "Nefaria" 
or "Maledicta" or "Perfidia" or "Morticia," can you?

Besides, that's probably a large part of how she got so very 
fanatical.  She was overcompensating.  Being a Death Eater Named Flo 
is kind of like being a Boy Named Sue, you know.  It makes you 
*Tough.*


Cindy declared herself:

> (tempted to ask Elkins to sort out the Gleam in Dumbledore's Eye, 
> once and for all)

Oh, that?  That one's easy.

It was just a trick of the light.


Charis, do please tell us about E.L.G.I.N.S.M.A.R.B.L.E.S.  Are they 
anything to do with my *own* marbles?  Because I think that I've 
misplaced those somewhere...


-- Elkins




From ganvira at earthlink.net  Fri Feb 22 01:41:20 2002
From: ganvira at earthlink.net (Terry van Ettinger)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:41:20 -0800
Subject: US & UK editions; dumbing down?
References: <a546ge+lerp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003c01c1bb42$07a87240$0797cd18@charterpipeline.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35578

I had not really noticed much in the way of words being replaced for U.S.
benefit, but then I've read half of the books via Jim Dale's narrated
versions and the other half from the Braille Institute versions.  So it's
possible that I have yet to see a U.S. edition.  In any event, I personally
think that the language used in the books should be left as is.  If JKR used
"jumper" for sweater, then that's what it should be.  It does us good to
learn to recognize those type of regional terms.  The stuff that isn't clear
can be looked up in a dictionary, verified with a British friend or
associate, or checked
>out in any number of places.  And learning about regional slang is also a
good way to learn to understand the culture of the region where the slang
originated.

 Regards,
Terry

Cole wrote:
> > > I don't understand why changing obvious British colloquialisms for
> > > American colloquialisms would be considered "dumbing down".  When
> they
> > > translated HP to German or Russian, I am sure that certain
> passages
> > > and "slang" were changed to reflect that culture.  Jeez, even in
> > > America, certain words have different meanings depending on where
> you
> > > live.  I don't think changing the word jumper to sweater was so
> > > God-awful and compromised the integrity of the HP series.  I mean,
> a
> > > jumper in America is a ladies dress -- and doubt that Harry is a
> > > cross-dresser. Even though the "primary" language in Britain &
> America
> > > is English, there a lot of differences in our slang -- for
> example,
> > > loo for bathroom, lift for elevator, randy -- well,er, all of you
> > > Brits know what randy means!
> > > Although I do agree that the title of the 1st book should not have
> > > changed.  There is an explaination of what the stone is; the
> prefix of
> > > said stone did not really have to change.
> > >
> > > cole(who does do her research on words she doesn't know and is not
> a
> > > dumbed down American)
>
{Elvish edit to remove some un-needed text-  Manxy}




From margdean at erols.com  Fri Feb 22 02:50:24 2002
From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:50:24 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Circumstances of Lucius' death (was Acronym for 
 George, Draco if Lucius died
References: <a532dl+o6n3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C75B1F0.A6E75875@erols.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35579

ftah3 wrote:

> And I don't really see him killing Lucius except for a very, very,
> VERY good reason.  If Voldemort killed him in a tempermental fit, it
> would bring to mind bad fictional villains who kill off their
> followers for no good reason, by which making me think, dude, you're
> killing the people you depend on *for no good reason!*  The Idiot
> Villain, lol.  Voldemort doesn't strike me as an Idiot Villain.

What if he caught Lucius backstabbing him?  I can very easily see
that happening, if Lucius thought it was to his advantage.  And
if Voldemort (=not= being an idiot for once) caught on, I doubt
he'd look very kindly on this.

What would Draco make of that, I wonder?


--Margaret Dean
  <margdean at erols.com>



From jmmears at prodigy.net  Fri Feb 22 03:10:48 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 03:10:48 -0000
Subject: SHIP: Cupid's Snitch and Cupid's Quaffle
In-Reply-To: <a548tj+r39a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a54cro+8l6o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35580

 
Elkins,
You've truly outdone yourself this time. I haven't had this much fun 
reading a series of posts since my first SHIPPING war.
I particularly like the part of your new theory (CUPIDSBLUDGER) 
where you have the mysterious Florence Lestrange as an earlier 
version of our own, dear Hermione (I have missed the trio a bit 
during all these highly entertaining backstories).  It's all there, 
isn't it?
The late bloomer, no female friends, frizzy hair ...
The more I think about it, the more I think you're *really* on to 
something.  


Elkins wrote:


> So in Cupid's Bludger, Dead Sexy Florence is replaced by late-
bloomer 
> Florence.  Florence, who values the opinion of her male Slytherin 
> friends so highly because she just doesn't *have* any female 
friends 
> (all of the other Slytherin girls in her year are really caught up 
in 
> this whole "Marry High, Marry Young, Breed Pureblooded Children 
For 
> the Cause" schtick, see, while Flo's a rabid feminist).  Florence,
> who hasn't yet learned that charm she'll use later in life to take 
> all the frizz out of her hair and make it all lustrous and shiny 
(an 
> entire bottle of that Sleekeasy junk would surely do the trick, 
but 
> that's *far* too much work for everyday, and besides, fifteen-year-
> old Flo would rather *die* than suck up to the Patriarchy like 
> that).  Florence, who doesn't laugh at the boys' jokes unless she
> really thinks that they're funny.  Florence, whose heavy-lidded 
eyes 
> strike all of the boys her age as weird-looking and strange, and 
Not 
> At All Attractive.  (Yes, they are mad.  They're also only fifteen 
> years old, so they haven't yet developed good taste.)
> 
> In short, while Florence may be passionate, obsessive, tenacious, 
> defiant, and proud to the point of self-destruction, one thing she 
> *isn't* is considered a "good catch."



I think you've got Hermione to a *T* here.  Maybe when you're done 
with the Severus/Sirius motivational theories, you might do some 
future projections and *prove* that Hermione is destined to be the 
new queen of the DEs.  Or would that be fanfic?  Oh damn, I hate 
fanfic.
Well, you are brilliant enough that I'm sure you can find a way to 
use canonical evidence to establish the *fact* that Hermy is already 
on the road to perdition.
As it stands, she's been far too much of a "sacred cow" on this list 
for far too long, and I know that with just a little thought you can 
turn the canon in her direction and let her have it. 
Enough sucking up on my part.  Think about it, will you?

Jo Serenadust
Enjoying the anarchy








From brewpub44 at earthlink.net  Fri Feb 22 03:30:38 2002
From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 03:30:38 -0000
Subject: Sirius and the Dark Mark
In-Reply-To: <a535lp+qlog@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a54e0u+ap08@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35581

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hollygolightly95" 
<miss_hollygolightly at h...> wrote:
> Greetings from London, England.
> Apologies if this has been discussed before (couldn't find it in 
the 
> archives...)
> 
> If all Death Eaters have the Dark Mark on their arm, it should be 
> easy enough to identify them. If Sirius never was a Death Eater, he 
> doesn't carry the mark, so why was that not enough to prove his 
> innocence? Why was he sent to Azkaban without even a trial?
> 
> holly


IIRC, the Dark Marks vanished when LV was defeated by the infant 
Potter. They did not return until GoF when LV was "reincarnated" by 
Pettigrew's spell. So it would not have been detectable when Sirius 
was arrested.

A Barkeep in Diagon Alley




From skelkins at attbi.com  Fri Feb 22 04:08:16 2002
From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 04:08:16 -0000
Subject: SHIP: Cupid's Snitch and Cupid's Quaffle
In-Reply-To: <a54cro+8l6o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a54g7g+r207@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35582

Yikes!

I just noticed a horrible error which is going to have Captain Charis 
beating me about the head her telescope if I don't fix it, and *fast!*

> > So in Cupid's Bludger, Dead Sexy Florence is replaced by late-
> > bloomer Florence....

That's Cupid's *Quaffle,* folks.  Cupid's Quaffle.  

C.U.P.I.D.S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. is an utterly respectable and not in the 
least bit subversive Snape/Sirius theory steered by the estimable
Charis Julia.  In CUPIDSBLUDGER, Florence is a very nice girl, who
may be Dead Sexy or may be Late Bloomer, but in either case most 
certainly does *not* grow up to become Evil Death Eater Mrs. 
Lestrange.

The Snitch and the Quaffle are the anarchistic ones.

Sorry about that.  I've never been in the least bit Sporty, so it's 
all too easy for me to, uh, get my balls confused.


Jo Serenadust wrote:

> I particularly like the part of your new theory...where you have
> the mysterious Florence Lestrange as an earlier version of our own, 
> dear Hermione (I have missed the trio a bit during all these highly 
> entertaining backstories).  

I don't seem to be able to resist imagining Ever So Evil Mrs. 
Lestrange as a twisted Dark version of Hermione grown up.  I have no 
idea why.  Perhaps it's because she's a woman in what would appear to 
be otherwise a man's milieu?  Or perhaps it's just because she's so 
marvellously *brave* in that one appearance she gets?  

> I think you've got Hermione to a *T* here.  Maybe when you're done 
> with the Severus/Sirius motivational theories, you might do some 
> future projections and *prove* that Hermione is destined to be the 
> new queen of the DEs.  

Hermione Granger Is Ever So Evil?

Are you *mad,* woman?  I'd be *lynched!*

<pause>

All the same.  It is kind of...*tempting,* isn't it?

> Or would that be fanfic?  

<gasps>  

Bite your tongue!  This is *speculation.*  It's completely 
different.  Utterly dissimilar.  Nothing Akin At All.

Trust me.


-- Elkins




From skelkins at attbi.com  Fri Feb 22 05:37:32 2002
From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 05:37:32 -0000
Subject: Fic vs. Spec, Lucius, backstories
In-Reply-To: <a4rntm+g8g5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a54les+t51c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35583

Gwen wrote:

> Now, you do realize that all the bouncing back and forth you, 
> Elkins, Eileen, and Tabouli have been indulging in lately is 
> fanfic, right?

<small smile>

Oh, bite your tongue.  It's *speculation.*

No, but seriously, I do see a distinction, albeit a very hazy one.
Both fanfic and fanspec may be seen as attempts to impose ones own
imaginative extrapolations from the original material on others, to
colonize not only the canon itself, but also other people's readings
of the canon.

The rules of engagement, however, are very different.  Fanfic 'defends
its thesis,' so to speak, by seducing its readers through compelling
characterization, polished prose, a riveting plot...in short, through
all of the tools of story-telling as a craft.  Fanspec, OTOH, uses 
the tools of literary analysis in its attempts to convert and sway its
readers.

Of course, the weapons in fiction's arsenal are just plain *better* 
than those at literary analysis' disposal -- they are more convincing,
more compelling, more seductive; they are altogether more effective.
This is one of the major reasons, I suspect, that so many people who 
avoid fanfic altogether out of the fear that it might "sully" the 
canon for them are nonetheless perfectly happy not only to read, but 
even to engage in 'loose canon' speculation.  It is also likely the 
reason that so many people give way to the temptation to enlist some 
of the weapons of fiction, even when they are writing a 
supposedly 'speculative' defense.

There's obviously significant overlap.  Popular speculations often 
seem to me to owe their popularity far less to their canonical 
plausibility as to their fictive appeal.  Neville Has A Memory Charm, 
for example, is certainly canonically defensible -- but is that 
really why people love it so much?  I don't know.  I rather suspect 
that people love it mainly because they think that it makes for a 
rousing good *story.*  We don't love certain speculations because we 
believe them to be true.  Rather, we desperately want them to be 
true, because we love them.

Looking at my own, er, contributions to these undoubtedly infuriating-
to-many threads, I see...complication.  The basic rock-bottom premise
of my Avery fixation, for example -- that Avery has been quite 
consciously and deliberately primed by the author to serve a more 
major role in future volumes -- is dead solid canonical speculation.  
The basic premise of Fourth Man is far less plausible, but still 
canon-based.  But all of the baggage surrounding the theory?  The 
accrual of variations on the theme (Fourth Man With Imperius, Fourth 
Man With SHIP, With Remorse, With Guilt, and so forth)?  The 
discussions of which branch of the MoM Avery should work in and why?  
The actual *depictions* of NervelessHysteric!Avery?

Getting pretty shady, I do agree.

Even poor NervelessHysteric!Avery, though, is really far more an in-
joke than he is a character.  He's not a character at all, really: 
he's a ludicrous caricature of a broken man.  Even in a piece of 
humorous writing, even in a *parody,* he still wouldn't really make 
the fictive grade.  Avery's really more commentary than character.  
He stands in as my personification of an entire collection of genres 
of fannish speculation: Sympathy For the Devil, Redeemable Villain, 
Guilt 'n' Angst, Reader Adoption of Minor Characters, and so forth.

Cupid's Snitch, OTOH, is a far trickier case, because it *is* parody, 
and parody is indeed a type of fiction.  What makes it an odd case, 
though, is that it isn't really parodying the original source 
material at *all* -- it is not a parody of the Harry Potter books in 
the least --  but rather a specific type of backstory speculation 
about the source material.  It's commentary on the commentary, and 
outside of the context of the discussions on this list, it is not 
only utterly unfunny but purely and simply bewildering (as my 
husband's evident puzzlement when I tried to explain it to him made 
abundantly clear).

So I'm not sure *what* to call this sort of thing.  It's really 
neither fanfic nor fanspec, IMO, but (like the silly SHIPping role-
play) some other form of play.  

The Ludic Activity That Dare Not Speak Its Name?  

Perhaps we should just call it "messing about with the props in the 
fictive wreckage while we wait for Book Five comes out," and leave it 
at that. 

So on to a few brief comments on your Malfoy backstory (which I 
absolutely adore, by the way).

On the Plot To Kill Grindlewald:

> I also time this conveniently just before the fall of Grindlewald in
> 1945. . . .Riddle and Malfoy were among a small group who tried to 
> assassinate their erstwhile lord. But before they could do the job, 
> Dumbledore and his merry band arrived on the scene and stopped him 
> for them. 

<nods>

1945.  Grindlewald.  An assassination plot.  And...

Hey!  Gwen, where's the Time-Turner?  You *know* that there has to be 
a Time-Turner involved here somehow, don't you?  How can there be 
impassioned ends-means arguments over the wisdom or the justification 
of going back in time to assassinate Grindlewald without a Time-
Turner?

Please tell me that Dumbledore and his crew are using a Time-Turner, 
Gwen.  Please?  Please?


On the Imperius Defense:

> Oh, yes, in my version, he went to the Ministry within 48 hours to 
> "confess" his involvement (under Imperius, of course). . . .I think 
> that in the wake of the tumultuous and shocking events of 31 
> October 1981, many of the DE's scattered. I think that might have 
> been part of a plan--in case anything should happen. I have a 
> feeling many of the DE's "covered their tracks" on 1-2 November and 
> set their stories straight before they could accidentally 
> incriminate one another. 

Actually, all loose-canon snarkiness aside, that's *precisely* how 
I've been imagining all that going down as well.  It certainly seems 
consistent with Hagrid's description of all of these wizards 
stumbling around confused, as if they'd just come out of trances.  I 
think that if you wanted to make the Imperius defense stick, then 
you'd really *have* to turn yourself in to the Ministry and confess --
and do so before not too much time had passed.  The fact that so 
many of the DEs got away with it has always rather implied to my 
mind, as well, that they must have had a contingency plan already
laid in place.


On Lucius Malfoy's Job:

> Interestingly, the trading cards list him as "underminister," or
> something like it, according to report, but I don't see him being a
> civil servant, even if wizard politics is more like American, with
> campaigning and general elections to top jobs (and of course 
> [corrupt] businessmen going into politics). 

It could be a sinecure that came with the family name and estate.  If 
there was once a wizarding aristocracy, or a wizarding equivalent of 
the House of Lords, then those old families could well have retained 
perks of that sort even once the system as a whole had been 
dismantled.


> Gwen (who refuses point-blank to participate in the list's ongoing
> cyber-action role playing game, but you kids have fun.)


Gwen's words slowly echo away.  The young mermaid on the smaller rock
pushes her scuba mask up onto her forehead and looks around, eyes 
wide.

"But..." she whispers. "But I don't understand.  Where was she 
*speaking* from?"

"I don't know."  Elkins hugs herself hard, shivering.  "That
was...really kind of creepy, wasn't it?"



-- Elkins




From elfundeb at aol.com  Fri Feb 22 06:20:25 2002
From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 06:20:25 -0000
Subject: The Character In The Most Enviable Position (but not our Favorite)
In-Reply-To: <a51fh4+ddl5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a54nv9+ncnt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35584

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> > I found this a hard question to answer, but I think I'll go with 
> Hermione.  She's in a pretty comfy situation, after all.  She has 
two 
> (loving?) parents, enough money so that it is not an issue, and a 
> great deal of ability and confidence.  I still get the sense that 
she 
> isn't all that popular among her peers, though.  But I'd say she 
has 
> the fewest number of problems of all the HP characters, has endured 
> the least hardship, and has the most potential to succeed post-
> Hogwarts.  
> 
> Funny thing, though.  She's not my favorite character.  Not by a 
long 
> shot.  But how could I honestly get away with saying that Lupin or 
> Black is in an enviable position?
> 
Ah, therein lies the rub.  How often is it that the person we really 
like best (in fiction or in life) is the person who has it all?  We 
may admire them but I suspect they're not the people we'd trust with 
our innermost fears.  I find in literature as in life that my 
favorite characters and people are those who, like Lupin, have 
strengths we admire as well as weaknesses that reaffirm their 
humanity -- and remind us of our imperfect selves.  Accordingly, I 
agree completely with your assessment of Hermione, especially as she 
appears in GoF, where we saw very little of her trademark weaknesses 
(fear of failure and consequent overwork, as well as a tendency to 
become immobile in crises such as the troll episode or the boggart 
final exam); instead we saw a much more confident Hermione who 
handled her problems with grace and determination.  The result?  She 
sank downward on my popularity chart, even though she is a 
wonderfully supportive friend to Harry.  I'm hoping that her 
weaknesses only took a temporary leave of absence and that she'll 
face some real crises in OoP, and not handle them as smoothly as she 
did Rita Skeeter.

Harry, on the other hand, who had a pitiful childhood and is haunted 
by the threat of LV, but has emerging spectacular magical ability, 
was in danger of turning into a superman superhero (the kiss of death 
in my popularity book), but admirably redeemed himself in GoF by 
acting on numerous occasions like a typical adolescent jerk.  (Three 
cheers for Harry the Date from Hell!)

Dumbledore is another obvious candidate for Most Enviable Character.  
He's in a position of great authority, is well respected, clearly has 
immense magical abilities that he seemingly uses only for good (or so 
McGonagall implies), as well as a delightfully odd sense of humor.  
If his hiring record weren''t so dreadful, and if he didn't let the 
Gryffindors get away with incessant rule-breaking, he'd be perfect. 
But he's not my favorite character either.  (That would be the all-to-
human Lupin; oh, 
I already said that. . .)

Debbie, fearing greatly that she has revealed the unimaginable fact 
that she not only has human weaknesses but in fact deliberately seeks 
out the company of other similarly situated humans

"They had their faults, and Mrs. Norris soon found them out."  (Jane 
Austen, Mansfield Park, Ch. III)




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Fri Feb 22 06:39:44 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 06:39:44 -0000
Subject: US & UK editions,
In-Reply-To: <a5445b+rmqg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a54p3g+jn9g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35585

Colebiancardi took the position that it was not a problem when 
Scholastic substituted American terms for the English terms in the 
Potter series. 

GulPlum replied:

> The one major issue I have with this position is that no publisher 
> has ever seen the need to "correct" UK editions of any American book 
> I've ever read. OK, So King, Grisham and all the other blockbuster 
> writers are marketed at an adult audience so it's accepted that we 
> adult Brits can manage. But American children's and youth literature 
> (which admittedly isn't that big over here because we have a very 
> rich local tradition) has never seen the need when publishing in 
> Britain to change a single word...<

Well, perhaps it is true that American books are usually published in 
Britain without modifications.  I live in the US, so I'll take your 
word for it.  However, this isn't the question relevant to the 
Potter books. The question relevant to the Potter books is, "How often 
are *British* books modified for publication in the *US*?" 

I think it's pretty common for British books to be modified when they 
are published in the US.  My sister is a book indexer, and has often 
indexed the American editions of British books; she says changes are 
very common when a British book is published in the US.

Maybe the reason for this assymmetry is that here in the US, we have 
little exposure to British popular culture.  Perhaps in England, 
people have some amount of exposure to American TV shows, songs, etc., 
and pick up some US slang. 

By the way, I found it really irksome that "Philosopher's Stone" was 
changed to "Sorcerer's Stone", but didn't mind the other changes.  The 
books still "sound" quite British to me, even with the chnages.

Judy





From muellem at bc.edu  Fri Feb 22 06:40:02 2002
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 06:40:02 -0000
Subject: US & UK editions; dumbing down?
In-Reply-To: <003c01c1bb42$07a87240$0797cd18@charterpipeline.com>
Message-ID: <a54p42+b1sf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35586

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Terry van Ettinger" <ganvira at e...> wrote:
> I had not really noticed much in the way of words being replaced for 
U.S.
> benefit, but then I've read half of the books via Jim Dale's 
narrated
> versions and the other half from the Braille Institute versions.  So 
it's
> possible that I have yet to see a U.S. edition.  In any event, I 
personally
> think that the language used in the books should be left as is.  

If you've been listening to the Jim Dale's narrated versions, you've 
been hearing the U.S. edition.  Earlier, someone had posted a list of 
all the differences between the UK & US and it wasn't that many 
individual words that were translated.  However, I didn't like the 
fact that whole sentences were reworded -- thought that was kinda 
of weird.  And honestly, I think even I, the "dumbed-down" American 
knows what "Mum" means!  They really didn't need to change that to 
"Mom".  But, again, the point was that the story is intact -- it is 
not like a plot change or anything.  

cole  





From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Fri Feb 22 07:17:10 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 07:17:10 -0000
Subject: Names for proper Death Eater ladies
In-Reply-To: <a548tj+r39a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a54r9m+qi3h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35587

Pippin asked:
> > But Florence...honestly, what kind of name is that for a Death 
> > Eater?

And Elkins said: 
> Aw, come on.  It's a *perfect* name for a Death Eater.  You can't 
> really expect every last one of them to have a name like "Nefaria" 
> or "Maledicta" or "Perfidia" or "Morticia," can you?

Although I find it traumatic to think that Mrs. Lestrange might be 
named "Florence", I have to admit that Elkins has a point.  So far, 
the two most prominent Slytherin girls have been named Pansy and 
Millicent.  Can't you just see Flo, Millie, and Pansy sitting down 
together at the kitchen table to have a cup of coffee -- using the 
skulls of their vanquished enemies as coffee cups? 

Speaking of proper ladies, Elkins also mentioned that the wizarding 
world is weirdly socially conservative, and so presumably reputation 
is important for girls.  I agree about the socially conservative part 
(and it does seem a bit odd.) But, I haven't seen any sign yet of a 
sexual double standard, I am pleased to say. 

Judy




From uncmark at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 22 08:37:43 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:37:43 -0000
Subject: Sirius and the Dark Mark
In-Reply-To: <a545k5+bjtu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5500n+2nci@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35588

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrober4211" <midwife34 at a...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hollygolightly95" 
> <miss_hollygolightly at h...> wrote:
> > Greetings from London, England.
> > Apologies if this has been discussed before (couldn't find it in 
> the 
> > archives...)
> > 
> > If all Death Eaters have the Dark Mark on their arm, it should be 
> > easy enough to identify them. If Sirius never was a Death Eater, 
he 
> > doesn't carry the mark, so why was that not enough to prove his 
> > innocence? Why was he sent to Azkaban without even a trial?
> > 
> >Hi there, I asked more or less the same thing when I put out a 
> possible theory of Sirius being a traitor in the future.One of the 
> key things was whether all deatheaters had the dark mark or not,and 
> did Sirius have one? Evidently he does not have the mark as someone 
> from the lists reminded me of the scene in the cave where Harry 
tells 
> him about the marks, and Sirius is puzzled by it. I personally, 
think 
> it would be stupid to brand every single one of your followers, 
like 
> the DE's, if you ever hope to have an inside person at Hogwarts to 
> gather information. 
> 
I got the impression the Dark Mark only became visible when called by 
LV. Karkaroff showed his to Snape that it was becoming darker. I 
deduce from his statement that the dark mark would have faded in the 
14 years since his defeat.

BTW, could Dumbledore use Snape's Dark Mark as a weapon against the 
DE's? Maybe a feedback spell with some transfiguration... At a 
crucial point in the iltimate battle Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle, etc. 
raise their wands and become... FLUFFY WHITE RABBITS!!!

Uncmark




From midwife34 at aol.com  Fri Feb 22 09:34:19 2002
From: midwife34 at aol.com (jrober4211)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:34:19 -0000
Subject: US & UK editions; dumbing down?
In-Reply-To: <a54p42+b1sf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a553ar+8msd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35589

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "colebiancardi" <muellem at b...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Terry van Ettinger" <ganvira at e...> 
wrote:
> > I had not really noticed much in the way of words being replaced 
for 
> U.S.
> > benefit, but then I've read half of the books via Jim Dale's 
> narrated
> > versions and the other half from the Braille Institute versions.  
So 
> it's
> > possible that I have yet to see a U.S. edition.  In any event, I 
> personally
> > think that the language used in the books should be left as is.  
> 
> If you've been listening to the Jim Dale's narrated versions, 
you've 
> been hearing the U.S. edition.  Earlier, someone had posted a list 
of 
> all the differences between the UK & US and it wasn't that many 
> individual words that were translated.  However, I didn't like the 
> fact that whole sentences were reworded -- thought that was kinda 
> of weird.  And honestly, I think even I, the "dumbed-down" American 
> knows what "Mum" means!  They really didn't need to change that to 
> "Mom".  But, again, the point was that the story is intact -- it is 
> not like a plot change or anything.  
> 
> One pertinent change that did happen to affect the perception of a 
character, as far as I was concerned, was changing Madam Pomfrey's 
title from "matron" in the UK version to "nurse" in the US version. 
There is a big difference in the roles, according to one english list 
member who explained it to me, hence the reason for my confusion and 
distaste for that character. I am alot more charitable towards Madam 
Pomfrey now that I understand what her true role is as a wizarding 
healthcare provider. 

Jo Ellen




From miss_hollygolightly at hotmail.com  Fri Feb 22 09:53:04 2002
From: miss_hollygolightly at hotmail.com (hollygolightly95)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:53:04 -0000
Subject: Sirius and the Dark Mark
In-Reply-To: <a5500n+2nci@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a554e0+b162@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35590

>--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hollygolightly95" 
wrote: 
> > Greetings from London, England. 
> > Apologies if this has been discussed before (couldn't find it in 
>the archives...) 
> > If all Death Eaters have the Dark Mark on their arm, it should be 
> > easy enough to identify them. If Sirius never was a Death Eater, 
he doesn't carry the mark, so why was that not enough to prove his 
> > innocence? Why was he sent to Azkaban without even a trial?  
> > holly 
 
>IIRC, the Dark Marks vanished when LV was defeated by the infant 
>Potter. They did not return until GoF when LV was "reincarnated" by 
>Pettigrew's spell. So it would not have been detectable when Sirius 
>was arrested. 
> 
>A Barkeep in Diagon Alley 
> 

Greetings from London.
All points taken. And very valuable ones too - thanks.
One of the reasons I raised the question is that I thought it would 
help Sirius to clear his name at the end of GoF. If he was a DE and 
carried the Mark it should have returned as it did for Snape and 
Karkaroff. 
Unless Fudge isn't interested of course. I agree with the suggestion 
that he may have had his reasons to see Sirius framed. 

Holly.







From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 22 10:01:14 2002
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 10:01:14 -0000
Subject: A Credo For George
In-Reply-To: <a52rbc+maeg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a554ta+bv7v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35591

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:

Snip *lots* of interesting stuff about George, of whom I have 
already declared myself to be a loyal follwer.  If I might be 
allowed to address one minor issue, though:

> I have to admit, both George and I are wobbly on the James Potter 
> issue.  On the one hand, it's appealing because it's a perfect 
> example of principle winning over sentiment: Snape *hates* James 
> Potter; on the emotional level, he'd be quite happy to see him come 
> to harm.  But principle demands that if a man saved your life, you 
> don't just stand by and let him and his son be murdered.  So it's 
> tempting to see this as a major motivating factor for Snape.  But, 
> as you say, the timeline is hard to reconcile, plus it strays 
> perilously close to the Big Bang theory, which is George's one 
> antithesis.  So we waffle.  Overall, though, I don't think the "life-
> debt to James" theory is incompatible with George; it's merely takes 
> a bit of work to reconcile, same as LOLLIPOPS.

If I've understood correctly, the problem with the timeline under 
the Life Debt theory is the assumption that a very short time 
passed between Voldemort's decision to kill the Potters, Snape's 
alerting Dumbledore to it, the Potters casting the Fidelius charm 
and their deaths a week later.  Thus Snape's conversion comes too 
close to Voldemort's fall.  I've always assumed, though, that in fact 
the Potters' deaths were preceeded by a very long period of playing 
cat and mouse - constantly one step ahead of Voldemort's assassins.  

Under this theory it's entirely possible for the threat to James to 
cause or at least trigger (if you don't favour Big Bangs as I don't) 
Snape's conversion, and his proof of candor to Dumbledore would 
be to provide him with information about the coming attempt(s) on 
the Potters' lives.  He could continue to act in this manner for a long 
time.  This also covers the great risk he was in - every attempt foiled 
would bring Voldemort closer to realising he had a leak in his organization.
 
I realise this theory (can I call it Cat & Mouse?) doesn't work over 
a long period of time unless Voldemort is supremely stupid or Snape 
is an exceptionally good spy (and Dumbledore is careful not to blow 
his cover by acting as though he has a spy in Voldemort's inner circle).  
But I could believe that the deceit would last for at least a few months, 
maybe even close to a year.  Is that enough time for all those people 
(like me) who want Snape's redemptive acts to be substantial enough 
to forgive him his youthfull indiscretions?
 
Abigail






From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Fri Feb 22 12:05:27 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 12:05:27 -0000
Subject: US & UK editions,
In-Reply-To: <a54p3g+jn9g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a55c67+7j6d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35592

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:
>   My sister is a book indexer, and has often 
> indexed the American editions of British books; she says changes are 
> very common when a British book is published in the US.

But indexes are compiled for nonfiction, where comprehension is key rather than 
the "story, and it's much more important to avoid incorrect inferences.




From meckelburg at foni.net  Fri Feb 22 12:05:27 2002
From: meckelburg at foni.net (mecki987)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 12:05:27 -0000
Subject: US & UK editions-German too!,
In-Reply-To: <a53f49+6nc5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a55c67+n7k2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35593

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "colebiancardi" <muellem at b...> wrote:
> - I mean, when they    translate the English version to
> Germain or Russian, I am sure certain
> meanings have to be translated according to that culture. 

Yes, but that is one of the main reasons the german translation is 
called a catastrophe by almost 99,9% of the adult-readers, that are 
capable of reading the original! 

Mecki







From psion_x at yahoo.com.au  Fri Feb 22 11:38:03 2002
From: psion_x at yahoo.com.au (psion_x)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:38:03 -0000
Subject: Impossible Timetables (Really Long and probably useless)
Message-ID: <a55air+4vvs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35594

I know this has been addressed before but I was wondering if anyone 
had actually managed to figure out the answer.
We know that Madam Sprout and Professor Snape have combined classes, 
and using evidence from the books it seems that for the First two 
years at Hogwarts one has three lessons a week from the main 
subjects ie: Charms, DADA, Transfiguration, Herbology, History of 
Magic and Potions, and from then on two lessons a week for all other 
years. 
In Sprout and Snape's case this has them with a workload of 32 
periods per week, a bit much maybe but I've always assumed the 
higher year level the more periods you have until in 7th year you 
have 7 periods a day which is normal in some schools.
However, all evidence points to Charms, DADA, HOM and 
Transfiguration been taken by each House seperately. This is where 
the biggest problem lies, under the above system, three classes a 
week for 1st and 2nd years and two lessons a week thereafter 
McGonagall, Binns, Flitwick and Quirell/Lockhart/Lupin/Moody would 
have to teach 64 lessons a week!
I assume once OWL's are over new subjects are taken but I've always 
assumed that Charms, Potions, DADA and Tranfiguration would remain 
compulary because of their importance. In this case how do 
McGonagall, Flictwick and whoever's doing DADA do it?
Evidence so far suggests that there's only one DADA teacher and so 
we can assume this for others to.
Is this yet another unsolvable problem that JKR has inadvertly 
written? Or are there really other Charms, etc teachers unlike 
though this seems (Fred and George are taught by "Moody" in Sixth 
Year after all).
Unfortunately for me, I can hardly wait for the next three books to 
come out since I'm writing a fan-fic at the moment that focuses a 
lot on classes at Hogwarts and what they involve etc.
So the question is do I just let the Teachers 'worry' about it, or 
introduce new ones?
Alternatively if Charms etc classes were sometimes broken up into a 
two house per class basis (say one lesson a week) this could bring 
the teachers workload to 40 periods a week, though there's no 
evidence of this in the books (maybe the Ravenclaws in Harry's year 
are really boring or something?)
Unfortunately for me again, my fic is not set in Harry's year and 
I've always believed that Harry's year is a very very small one due 
to the fact there would have been many deaths in 1980 particularly 
of babies (Voldermort was out to kill Harry remember). In other 
words the year I'm writing about has about 30 or more students per 
HOUSE year so combining two of them together would leave a class of 
60.
So you can see my problem.
If anyone could offer some good suggestions in regards to this 
problem it would be greatly apperciated.  





From Edblanning at aol.com  Fri Feb 22 12:23:39 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 07:23:39 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius and the Dark Mark
Message-ID: <63.6f7aacb.29a7924b@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35595

In a message dated 21/02/02 17:34:47 GMT Standard Time, foxmoth at qnet.com 
writes:


> 
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hollygolightly95" 
> <miss_hollygolightly at h...> wrote:
> 
> > If all Death Eaters have the Dark Mark on their arm, it should be 
> > easy enough to identify them. If Sirius never was a Death Eater, 
> he  doesn't carry the mark, so why was that not enough to prove 
> his  innocence? Why was he sent to Azkaban without even a 
> trial?
> 
> Sirius was captured after Voldemort's fall when the Mark had  
> vanished. The vanishing would have been among the signs that 
> Voldemort had really gone. The mark only returned as Voldemort 
> began to regain his physical form. Thus Snape's remark in the 
> Penseive, "It's coming back...Karkaroff's too...stronger and 
> clearer than ever." 
> 
> I wonder how the Mark was hidden when the Dark Lord was still 
> strong. Perhaps Voldemort can control how visible it is. Or 
> perhaps the Ministry knew about the Mark from Snape but did not 
> dare to use the knowledge, say to  search any suspects, 
> because it might have revealed that one of Voldemort's Inner 
> Circle was a traitor, thus compromising Snape. In World War II 
> the British had to be very cautious about using information they 
> had deciphered from the Enigma code because they didn't want 
> the Germans to know they had broken it.
> 
> Pippin
> 

Two further comments ( all this happened whist I was tucked up in bed, so I'm 
trailing in last, as usual).

First, Crouch/Moody reveals to Snape that he knows about the Dark Mark during 
the pyjama party. Yes, we could say he knows because he is really *Crouch*, 
but OTOH, he was pretending to be Moody as far as Snape was concerned and 
wouldn't want to raise suspicion, thus suggesting that Aurors did indeed know 
about it. Unless he was hoping that Snape would put two and two together and 
join him (I only just thought of that) - a risky strategy.

Secondly, the fact of the mark 'becoming stronger' suggests that to me that 
it is always present, not just there when Voldemort is communicating via it 
(Snape notes that it burned blacker when Voldemort summoned the DEs to the 
graveyard, but it was still there later). Which does make it a very risky 
device.

And finally ( I know I said two, but never mind), we do not know that *all* 
Voldemort's supporters are a) DEs and b) have the Dark Mark. The Potter's 
betrayer did not *have* to be  a DE. Sirius *could* have been a spy ( From 
the MOM's POV) without being one of the inner elite.

Eloise, delighted that Holly and Dicentra have joined the Evil Fudge camp. 
(Acronym, Tabouli?)


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




From pen at pensnest.co.uk  Fri Feb 22 12:34:54 2002
From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 12:34:54 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: US & UK editions,
In-Reply-To: <a54p3g+jn9g@eGroups.com>
References: <a5445b+rmqg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <l03130300b89bea624af3@[161.33.128.215]>

No: HPFGUIDX 35596

Judy said:

>Well, perhaps it is true that American books are usually published in
>Britain without modifications.  I live in the US, so I'll take your
>word for it.  However, this isn't the question relevant to the
>Potter books. The question relevant to the Potter books is, "How often
>are *British* books modified for publication in the *US*?"
>
>I think it's pretty common for British books to be modified when they
>are published in the US.  My sister is a book indexer, and has often
>indexed the American editions of British books; she says changes are
>very common when a British book is published in the US.

>Maybe the reason for this assymmetry is that here in the US, we have
>little exposure to British popular culture.  Perhaps in England,
>people have some amount of exposure to American TV shows, songs, etc.,
>and pick up some US slang.

Is it just me, or is there something a little circular about this argument?
If British stuff is 'edited for culture' when it transfers to the US, how
is British popular culture ever to achieve the necessary level of exposure
for it to be readily understood?

Pen






From meboriqua at aol.com  Fri Feb 22 14:24:26 2002
From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:24:26 -0000
Subject: The Character In The Most Enviable Position  
In-Reply-To: <a54nv9+ncnt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a55kaq+lvrq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35597

I have been thinking about this since it was posted and last night as 
I was trying unsuccessfully to sleep, the answer came to me.

First of all, I envy every single child who gets a letter from 
Hogwarts.  What I wouldn't give to go there!  I envy all of the 
characters for being able to live in a world where invisibility cloaks 
exist, broomsticks can fly, people can turn into animals and... where 
magic just *is*.

Individually, though I don't really envy any of the characters except 
for... Hedwig.  She has the best deal.  She's beautiful, flies, 
belongs to Harry and is able to often get away with having quite the 
attitude.  She doesn't have to deal with Voldemort or Snape (or 
Hagrid) and she gets to travel all over the wizarding world.  She is 
also often rewarded for her work: with a shared breakfast or a petting 
from Harry.

What a life!

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




From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Fri Feb 22 14:30:55 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:30:55 -0000
Subject: US & UK editions,
In-Reply-To: <l03130300b89bea624af3@[161.33.128.215]>
Message-ID: <a55kmv+ar5i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35598

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Pen Robinson <pen at p...> wrote:
> Judy said:
> >Maybe the reason for this assymmetry is that here in the US, we have
> >little exposure to British popular culture.  Perhaps in England,
> >people have some amount of exposure to American TV shows, songs, etc.,
> >and pick up some US slang.
> 
> Is it just me, or is there something a little circular about this argument?
> If British stuff is 'edited for culture' when it transfers to the US, how
> is British popular culture ever to achieve the necessary level of exposure
> for it to be readily understood?

I guess we'll just have to spend more time watching those British shows on public 
TV!  ;-)




From Edblanning at aol.com  Fri Feb 22 14:37:33 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:37:33 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: US & UK editions; dumbing down?
Message-ID: <d8.13cc3dad.29a7b1ad@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35599

In a message dated 22/02/02 06:47:21 GMT Standard Time, muellem at bc.edu writes:


> And honestly, I think even I, the "dumbed-down" American 
> knows what "Mum" means!  They really didn't need to change that to 
> "Mom".  But, again, the point was that the story is intact -- it is 
> not like a plot change or anything.  
> 
> 

Now that's a really stupid change (IMHO, she says, moderating her tone 
rapidly). A British child could just as easily say sweater as jumper (though 
the latter is IMO, more likely): they are synonymous British terms. But a 
British kid would never, never say 'Mom', unless they were deliberately 
putting on an American accent. That crosses the border, from replacing 
confusing terms ( and BTW, why does this conversation keep referring to 
'slang'?: as I understand it many of the replacements are for standard terms) 
to embracing a specifically American mode of expression.

Eloise ( who has issues of cultural identity on her mind at the moment)


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




From greyshi at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 22 14:25:50 2002
From: greyshi at yahoo.com (greyshi)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:25:50 -0000
Subject: US & UK editions; dumbing down?
In-Reply-To: <a54p42+b1sf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a55kde+8als@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35600

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "colebiancardi" <muellem at b...> wrote:

> However, I didn't like the 
> fact that whole sentences were reworded -- thought that was kinda 
> of weird.  And honestly, I think even I, the "dumbed-down" American 
> knows what "Mum" means!  They really didn't need to change that to 
> "Mom".  But, again, the point was that the story is intact -- it is 
> not like a plot change or anything.  


I read enough British books as a kid to have my spelling influenced, 
which may not win me any US spelling bees, but I don't see it as a
bad 
thing. So I kind of understand the vocabulary and word changes, even
if 
I don't like it overall. Scholastic themselves did it very 
inconsistently, though.

However, I don't understand why they changed whole sentences and 
passages! The biggest glaring change for me is with the Sorting Hat. 
The text states that the hat has three people left to sort and then
it 
goes and sorts four more! They stick Dean Thomas in. I'm not sure
why, 
unless it was to satisfy US PC-ism since they make a point to mention 
Dean's race. I've seen the Spanish, Taiwanese and Mainland Chinese 
language translations, and these follow the UK edition for this 
passage.

Greyshi






From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu  Fri Feb 22 15:35:16 2002
From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:35:16 -0000
Subject: Fic vs. Spec, Lucius, backstories
In-Reply-To: <a54les+t51c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a55ofk+nhdi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35601

This message concludes a few issues that have come up on the list, but
is only tenuously connected to topic. Anything else on the subject of
fanfic or cyber-roleplaying should go to OT-Chatter. Thanks.


--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" <skelkins at a...> wrote:

> Oh, bite your tongue.  It's *speculation.*
>
> No, but seriously, I do see a distinction, albeit a very hazy one.
> Both fanfic and fanspec may be seen as attempts to impose ones own
> imaginative extrapolations from the original material on others, to
> colonize not only the canon itself, but also other people's readings
> of the canon.

<snip an excellent comparison of the process of writing fiction vs.
that of speculation>

Elkins, I think it was either just before you joined or just after,
but we had a ripping discussion recently about speculation vs. fanfic.
See message 31221 and the thread that followed it. Part of the reason
I was ribbing Cindy was her assertion that she "didn't understand" why
someone would write fanfic, and yet much of the discussion recently
has been at least as creative in nature. :^)

Elkins continued:
> Looking at my own, er, contributions to these undoubtedly infuriating-
> to-many threads, I see...complication.
<snip Avery sketch>
> Getting pretty shady, I do agree.
>
<snip parody recap>
>
> So I'm not sure *what* to call this sort of thing.  It's really
> neither fanfic nor fanspec, IMO, but (like the silly SHIPping role-
> play) some other form of play.
>

I really would classify it as a form of fanfiction--perhaps not
fleshed out with bells and whistles, but more than mere recitation of
facts. I know, from past discussions about this very problem, that
there are many on the list who think this stance controversial; but
there are also others who agree, distinugishing little between them.
The main reason I take this position is because, the extent to which
we fill in the blanks of any of the as-yet underdeveloped or
sufficiently gappy characters necessitates a great deal of
creativity--that is, we "create" the character to some degree. Now,
for the most part, that creative process attempts to remain within
acceptable parameters of plausibility. For example, you assumed that
Cupid's Snitch was too far-fetched to be "believable," but you buy
into the credence you assign to the Fourth Man (at least, I think you do).

But the point is, it's still a creative process, one that can no
longer be said to be "based" entirely on canon. Yes, we can all twist
the canon a number of ways--and some have, to varying degrees of
plausibility. If I desired, I could probably devote a lot of time to
"proving" that HP is really an allegory for gay rights (Harry lived in
a literal closet for 11 years before discovering what he really is) or
some equally odd notion, like...oh, HP is "opening the way for a new
generation to embrace the Evil One." These are both real--I just saw
the former on a different discussion forum, and the latter is courtesy
of demonbusters.com.

Hm. I guess it is all about format. There's an overtone sometimes from
non-fanfic writers that suggests they think that fanfic doesn't base
itself firmly in canon to make any of its more fantastic claims. I'm
not saying any non-fanfic people actually *think* that, but sometimes
it comes across as an attitude of, "Well, you hang your stories on
such minute details in the story--your hypotheses are not really based
on canon, or at least canon-as-a-whole, but rather facts lifted out
and viewed in relative isolation from the rest--so it has to be
relegated to the realm of fanfic because it could never possibly
become an integral part of the story."

So forgive me if I seem amused when staunch "I don't get it"
non-fanfic writers expend a great deal of energy breathing life into
minor window-dressing characters such as Mr. Lestrange, Florence the
school slut (judging how she attracted Sirius, Severus, Mr. Lestrange,
Avery, Barty, and Peter all within a few days!), or others.


> Perhaps we should just call it "messing about with the props in the
> fictive wreckage while we wait for Book Five comes out," and leave it
> at that.
>

Well, I definitely think we're all getting just a tad punchy. Witness
the personification of George. (And thanks, btw, for pinning him down.
I'm still on the fence, but leaning toward the Georgian philosophy,
definitely.) And I must say, the Snape-theories at-a-glance will be
very helpful when I catch up and work them into the Snape FAQ (only
13,500 messages to go, folks!).


> So on to a few brief comments on your Malfoy backstory (which I
> absolutely adore, by the way).

Thank you! :^D I'm rather fond of it, myself.


You suggested:
> 1945.  Grindlewald.  An assassination plot.  And...
>
> Hey!  Gwen, where's the Time-Turner?  You *know* that there has to be
> a Time-Turner involved here somehow, don't you?  How can there be
> impassioned ends-means arguments over the wisdom or the justification
> of going back in time to assassinate Grindlewald without a Time-
> Turner?
>
> Please tell me that Dumbledore and his crew are using a Time-Turner,
> Gwen.  Please?  Please?

Er.... I hadn't really thought about it. Why would there need to be an
ends-means justification of going back in time? Dumbledore *did*
defeat Grindelwald in 1945, and he would have been about 100 years old
at the time.... so why go back and do it?

My gut tendency would be to say no, since the accident of timing
involving Malfoy, Sr.'s cursing would get sticky if a Time-Turner is
involved. (Wagging Groucho Marx's eyebrows, holding his cigar: and
what would happen if Tina Turner were involved, we don't even want to
contemplate.)

But...oh, heck. In the interest of benevolent topical fodder for you
and the punch bowl crew, I'd say nothing so far rules it out.



> On the Imperius Defense:
<snip me>
> Actually, all loose-canon snarkiness aside, that's *precisely* how
> I've been imagining all that going down as well.  <snip Elkins>  The
fact that so
> many of the DEs got away with it has always rather implied to my
> mind, as well, that they must have had a contingency plan already
> laid in place.
>

Yep. Among other things, Lucius made sure he was seen a couple places,
to establish alibi (and specifically not knowing what happened), a
bunch of them met at the DE hideout (what? Of course they had one) and
destroyed evidence/practised their stories, maybe even modified each
other's memories a bit to place a false Imperius memory there. Lucius
also met with his solicitor, told him a watered-down version of the
official story, and was "advised" to tell the Ministry as soon as
possible. And last, he presented Narcissa with a document to memorize
for the investigation. Oh, he had it covered. And pulled off the
acting job of his life telling them all about it.

> On Lucius Malfoy's Job:
>
<snip me again>
>
> It could be a sinecure that came with the family name and estate.  If
> there was once a wizarding aristocracy, or a wizarding equivalent of
> the House of Lords, then those old families could well have retained
> perks of that sort even once the system as a whole had been
> dismantled.

That's true, and I hadn't thought of it, but if so, I believe it would
be as you say, a "perk" and doesn't carry half as much responsibility
as it does influence. Hm. I quite like that, in some ways. Thanks.


Ah, yes, and the last thing, which really ties much more closely into
the first idea--that the real "fanfic" here isn't actually your
canonical musing, but your descriptive hijinks on the high seas....

> Gwen's words slowly echo away.  The young mermaid on the smaller rock
> pushes her scuba mask up onto her forehead and looks around, eyes
> wide.
>
> "But..." she whispers. "But I don't understand.  Where was she
> *speaking* from?"
>
> "I don't know."  Elkins hugs herself hard, shivering.  "That
> was...really kind of creepy, wasn't it?"


VBG. Indeed, you all are Cyber-Action Role Playing. Hey, I just
invented an acronym: CARP! Carpe Potter! Carpe Theorem!

Gwen




From ganvira at earthlink.net  Fri Feb 22 15:29:00 2002
From: ganvira at earthlink.net (Terry van Ettinger)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 07:29:00 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Names for proper Death Eater ladies
References: <a54r9m+qi3h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00a101c1bbb5$a6ce57e0$0797cd18@charterpipeline.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35602

> Pippin asked:
> > > But Florence...honestly, what kind of name is that for a Death
> > > Eater?
>
> And Elkins said:
> > Aw, come on.  It's a *perfect* name for a Death Eater.  You can't
> > really expect every last one of them to have a name like "Nefaria"
> > or "Maledicta" or "Perfidia" or "Morticia," can you?
> To which Judy replied:
> Can't you just see Flo, Millie, and Pansy sitting down
> together at the kitchen table to have a cup of coffee -- using the
> skulls of their vanquished enemies as coffee cups?

Exactly!  Who would suspect that someone with a name like Pansy or Millie
would be a death eater?  The names sound so innocent that no one would
think, upon first hearing them, that the people to whom those names belonged
were leaning to the dark side.  Something like Morticia or Maledicta already
gives the impression of someone who's less than admirable.  It's almost the
reverse, I think, of what we see with Snape.  When I heard the name Severus
Snape the first time, I would have bet anything that he was going to prove
evil.  Yet he's shown himself to be loyal to Dumbledore throughout the
books.  So there's a good example, IMO, of a counterpart to the
Florence/Millicent/Pansy situation, not only in gender, but allegiance.

Terry






From Ali at zymurgy.org  Fri Feb 22 15:49:17 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:49:17 -0000
Subject: Impossible Timetables (Really Long and probably useless)
In-Reply-To: <a55air+4vvs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a55p9t+phul@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35603

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

> I assume once OWL's are over new subjects are taken but I've always 
> assumed that Charms, Potions, DADA and Tranfiguration would remain 
> compulary because of their importance. In this case how do 
> McGonagall, Flictwick and whoever's doing DADA do it?
> Evidence so far suggests that there's only one DADA teacher and so 
> we can assume this for others to.

I know this is a big assumption, but if NEWTS are similar to English 
A'Levels, then the students would take only 3 to 4 subjects - and 
they would all be optional. This would mean that they would have to 
have more lesons in those subjects though, so I don't know if that 
helps or hinders your timetable problems. 

I can't remember which book it's in, but there is mention of 
a "Charms Corridor", which makes you think that there might be a 
Charms department, rather than just one teacher. 

Ali




From cindysphynx at home.com  Fri Feb 22 16:49:48 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:49:48 -0000
Subject: Bangers, Life Debts (WASBangers and their bangs )
In-Reply-To: <F76ON6xQPFnaxgFa7o20000e3e4@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a55src+bv6t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35604

Jake Storm wrote:

> What if, just a conjecture here, it wasn't just up to Dumbledore 
when Snape 
> came back to the Light? What if Dumbledore was ready to give the 
man another 
> chance, remembering the bright young man that he'd help to teach 
years 
> before, but somebody else, say Moody or that straight-shooting 
Frank 
> Longbottom, declared that they'd not beleive that Snape wasn't a 
double 
> until he'd given them something wildly juicy?
> 
> That gives us Dumbledore as good-hearted believer in the light side 
of human 
> nature, plus all the family fun of a bloody ambush!

Ah, this is just perfect!  Jake has dreamed up a fabulous ambush 
compromise that makes perfect sense and, as an added bonus, is 
actually based in canon.  

Maybe Dumbledore might believe Snape for no good reason, but Moody 
would have none of it.  In fact, we see in GoF that Moody doesn't 
trust Snape at all, in the Pensieve or 13 years later.  So that gives 
us a really great Big Bang scene in which Snape is weeping, crawling 
on the floor, apologizing, begging to join Dumbledore. Dumbledore is, 
uh, twinkling. But Moody is there, his two normal eyes swiveling 
wildly around in his head, his itchy trigger finger stroking his 
wand, restraining himself from turning Snape into a hedgehog and 
bouncing him around the office.  It is Moody who *demands* DE corpses 
as the price of admission.  Dumbledore is a Tough strong wizard, but 
he goes along with Moody, not wishing to be turned into a hedgehog 
himself.  Nobody, but nobody, is willing to tangle with Alastor Moody.

Oh, yes, that works.  Jake, consider yourself a full-fledged crew 
member in good standing of Big Bang, including an extra-large bunk, a 
sturdy cushioned chair in the mess hall, and an extra-helping of -- 
what else? -- bangers.  This just *feels* right -- Jake Storm 
*belongs* with the Big Bangers because he has a really dramatic, 
cool, Big Bang-sounding name and all.

Pardon?  What's that?  Jake never actually declared himself a Big 
Banger? He was just trying to help because he likes bloody ambushes?  

Oh, I see. My, this is awkward.  All right.  If Jake is going over to 
LOLLIPOPS or George, then I don't want to know about it, OK?

Well, um, MJollner and I can sail this ship quite nicely by 
ourselves, thank-you-very-much.  We won't be able to steer very well, 
so we'll just cruise aimlessly.  If we happen to ram any of your 
ships or Coast Guard vessels, don't take it personally.  

Judy wrote:

> Wait a minute, Cindy!  Didn't you propose that Snapes owes 
> *Dumbledore* a life debt?  Because Dumbledore could have killed 
him, 
> but spared him instead?  I thought that was Mercy, or Mercy II. 

Life debt to Lily, Life debt to Dumbledore.  Let's face it -- both 
are so *lame*.  But no, I was remembering my original humiliation 
correctly the first time.  My initial description of Mercy was as 
follows:

>In this theory, Lily does something truly heroic to 
> save Snape's life while they are at Hogwarts.  Um, perhaps Sirius, 
> prankster that he is, is about to do some dastardly thing to Snape, 
> like drag Snape in the shower and wash his greasy hair.  (Why, oh 
> why, is Sirius always the heavy?)  Lily learns of this and, having 
> figured out that Snape is half-dementor and will dissolve in water, 
> intervenes and saves Snape's life.  And we know what happens when a 
> wizard saves another wizard's life:  Snape is in her debt.  

Yeah, it was that bad.  ::hangs head in shame::  Can we just let 
Mercy die a dignified, quiet death now?  Please?

Kimberly wrote (letting me down gently on Big Bang and Ambush):

> But if D were all excited about taking out enemy soldiers, why 
would 
> he praise Harry for sparing Pettigrew?  I don't have an answer for 
> that, but it seems strange.

I think Dumbledore praises Harry because he doesn't have any other 
choice.  His other option is to scream, "Geez, Harry, thanks a whole 
freakin' lot!  You let a murder get away scot free, you doomed your 
godfather to live life on the run, and you did it *knowing* that the 
murderer was going to help Voldemort return.  Everything that happens 
from this point forward is blood on *your* hands; I hope you're 
happy!"  Mmmm, that sounds a little out of character.  

But then again, if there really is something to this Life Debt 
business, then I think a lot of people are living on credit.  Snape 
owes James (PoA).  Pettigrew owes Harry (PoA).  Harry owes Dumbledore 
(PoA in Quiddich).  Hermione owes Harry and Ron (PS/SS Troll).  
Sirius owes Hermione and Harry (PoA Rescue).  Voldemort owes 
Pettigrew (GoF Re-Birthing).  Ginny owes Harry (CoS Chamber).  Harry 
owes the graveyard shadows (GoF).  Real Moody owes Dumbledore (GoF 
Trunk).  Harry owes Dobby (GoF Second Task).  

Did I miss any?  

Elkins wrote (about Dumbledore's gleam):

> Oh, that?  That one's easy.
> 
> It was just a trick of the light.

Yeah, you're right.  It was an errant twinkle.  Could have happened 
to anyone.

Cindy (wondering how Crouch Jr. is able to kill his father when his 
father sprung him from Azkaban, which ought to create at least a mini-
Life Debt)




From catalyna_99 at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 22 16:14:15 2002
From: catalyna_99 at yahoo.com (Cat)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:14:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: US & UK editions, (Please move to OT Chatter now)
In-Reply-To: <a55kmv+ar5i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020222161415.14900.qmail@web10706.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35605

NOTE: Moderators, should this be moved to chatter?
thanks.

Thank you.  Yes, as this topic is now OT, could everyone who wishes to comment further, please pick up the thread on OT-Chatter (hpfgu-otchatter at yahoogroups.com)?

Cat, you may wish to repost this to OT Chatter to start things off.

Thanks

Neil

for Moderator Team

***


> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Pen Robinson <pen at p...>
> wrote:
> > Judy said:
> > >Maybe the reason for this asymmetry is that here
> in the US, we have
> > >little exposure to British popular culture. 
> Perhaps in England,
> > >people have some amount of exposure to American
> TV shows, songs, etc.,
> > >and pick up some US slang.

But what irks me, is this is a recent phenomena. In
the 19th century and early to mid 1900s this was not
considered necessary.  I read some children's
magazines my aunt had that were written about 1918,
the terms were definitely British and no one thought
about changing them.  The stories usually took place
in boarding schools (ala Tom Brown) and at first I was
a little confused by words such as bags for trousers,
biscuits for cookies, plus the term fag and fagging
meaning a younger student having to serve an older
form student by fetching, cleaning out the fireplaces,
etc.  The confusion was brief however, because I could
get the meaning from the context.  Why do we think
that children now can't do what we did before?  

Cat

=====
Cat

Life's like a movie. Write your own ending. Keep believing, keep pretending.--Kermit the Frog

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com




From plumeski at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 22 16:04:36 2002
From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:04:36 -0000
Subject: US & UK editions, (moving to OT Chatter now)
In-Reply-To: <a54p3g+jn9g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a55q6k+qceq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35606

Moderator Note:

Could we move this thread to OT Chatter now? (hpfgu-otchatter at yahoogroups.com)?

GulPlum: By all means repost this response to Judy on OT Chatter.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Neil

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

"judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:

> Well, perhaps it is true that American books are usually published 
in 
> Britain without modifications.  I live in the US, so I'll take your 
> word for it.  However, this isn't the question relevant to the 
> Potter books. 

Isn't it? Why *should* UK books be "translated" into American when 
the reverse isn't true? OK, the UK population is about a fifth that 
of the US (sorry, can't be bothered to look up the figures) so 
perhaps publishers don't think it cost-effective to make any changes, 
but even so, no educator or parent has a problem with it. Why 
*should* American educators consider it an issue? (From various 
discussions I've had, American educators *do* have a problem with it.)

The question relevant to the Potter books is, "How often 
> are *British* books modified for publication in the *US*?" 

> changes are very common when a British book is published in the US.

> Maybe the reason for this assymmetry is that here in the US, we 
have 
> little exposure to British popular culture.  

And bastardising British books helps in that exposure, does it? 
Sorry, but I find that argument EXTREMELY patronising. Not only 
towards British culture, but towards the books' American readers and 
their intelligence.

It's also dangerous: is it any wonder that much of the rest of the 
world considers Americans to be closed-minded and imperialistic, when 
they can't accept a culture as close to their own as the British one 
on its own terms without having to "domesticate" it?

> By the way, I found it really irksome that "Philosopher's Stone" 
was 
> changed to "Sorcerer's Stone", but didn't mind the other changes.  
The 
> books still "sound" quite British to me, even with the chnages.

>From what you said about limited exposure to British culture, on what 
basis can you really say that with any degree of certainty, 
considering you're viewing it through the prism of an American editor?






From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Fri Feb 22 17:28:23 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:28:23 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Bangers, Life Debts (WASBangers and their bangs )
Message-ID: <F208XulOBq3kbmBkDG200021ee6@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35607

Quoth Cindy:
>Ah, this is just perfect!  Jake has dreamed up a fabulous ambush
>compromise that makes perfect sense and, as an added bonus, is
>actually based in canon.

<takes a bow>

>Maybe Dumbledore might believe Snape for no good reason, but Moody
>would have none of it.  In fact, we see in GoF that Moody doesn't
>trust Snape at all, in the Pensieve or 13 years later.  So that gives
>us a really great Big Bang scene in which Snape is weeping, crawling
>on the floor, apologizing, begging to join Dumbledore. Dumbledore is,
>uh, twinkling. But Moody is there, his two normal eyes swiveling
>wildly around in his head, his itchy trigger finger stroking his
>wand, restraining himself from turning Snape into a hedgehog and
>bouncing him around the office.  It is Moody who *demands* DE corpses
>as the price of admission.  Dumbledore is a Tough strong wizard, but
>he goes along with Moody, not wishing to be turned into a hedgehog
>himself.  Nobody, but nobody, is willing to tangle with Alastor Moody.

We don't even have to be this hard on Moody. It doesn't have to be him at 
all. Maybe all Aurors are Tremendous Hardcases, especially at this late date 
in the war against Voldie, which isn't exactly going well. Perhaps they are 
all of a mind to think that Snape is leading them down the garden path, that 
his return to The Light is a bunch of roadapples. There might be plenty of 
Aurors and Hit-Wizards that demand physical proof of his contrition.

Let's see if we can't make this a corollary to the Big Bang theory. How 
about Most Aurors Yen for Huge Enemy Massacre - M.A.Y.H.E.M.

>Oh, yes, that works.  Jake, consider yourself a full-fledged crew
>member in good standing of Big Bang, including an extra-large bunk, a
>sturdy cushioned chair in the mess hall, and an extra-helping of --
>what else? -- bangers.  This just *feels* right -- Jake Storm
>*belongs* with the Big Bangers because he has a really dramatic,
>cool, Big Bang-sounding name and all.
>
>Pardon?  What's that?  Jake never actually declared himself a Big
>Banger? He was just trying to help because he likes bloody ambushes?

Well, technically, I'm only signing on for a short tour. I tend to parasail 
from deck to deck on these ships, mooching for cocktails and nibbles.

And I propose that we put Cupid's Quaffle to the Big Bang test. I'm tempted 
to believe that having her surreptitious snogging with Sirius brought to 
light, combined with the 'realisation' that she's been being used, nay 
*pitied* by Sirius in the first place is enough to turn her from simply a 
nasty-tempered but bookish girl into the Vamp that becomes Dead Sexy Mrs. 
Lestrange.

Cindy again:
>But then again, if there really is something to this Life Debt
>business, then I think a lot of people are living on credit.  Snape
>owes James (PoA).  Pettigrew owes Harry (PoA).  Harry owes Dumbledore
>(PoA in Quiddich).  Hermione owes Harry and Ron (PS/SS Troll).
>Sirius owes Hermione and Harry (PoA Rescue).  Voldemort owes
>Pettigrew (GoF Re-Birthing).  Ginny owes Harry (CoS Chamber).  Harry
>owes the graveyard shadows (GoF).  Real Moody owes Dumbledore (GoF
>Trunk).  Harry owes Dobby (GoF Second Task).

Technically, Sirius doesn't owe Harry and Hermione...they didn't save his 
life, just his mortal soul. Nitpicking? Perhaps.

But this does raise the question: just what qualifies for a Life Debt? If I 
make you late for work by getting in a car wreck with you, and because of it 
you're not at the office when a gas main blows, is that sort of accident 
enough to create the debt? Or do you have to do something daring, like Harry 
for Ginny in CoS or James for Severus in our backstory?

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





From Edblanning at aol.com  Fri Feb 22 19:52:15 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:52:15 EST
Subject: Acronym for Steady State theory ( was US&UK editions, Big Bang, Steady State)
Message-ID: <18d.3c51ce2.29a7fb6f@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35608

In a message dated 21/02/02 18:09:05 GMT Standard Time, mjollner at yahoo.com 
writes:


> 
> But...but...but...(trying not to sputter her breakfast Diet Coke all 
> over the keyboard) where's the fun in that?!? OK, so your theory is 
> perfectly reasonable and sound and even persuasive, but it just 
> doesn't have, y'know, *pizazz.*
> 
> So might I suggest an acronym to jazz things up? How 'bout 
> M.E.T.A.M.O.R.P.H.O.S.I.S.: Mere Evil Troubled Awareness, Motivating 
> Our Racked, Principled anti-Hero Onward, Seeking Integrity and 
> Solution?
> 
> OK, so it's a little weak in the middle. Couldn't find a better noun 
> for the "H." We can't all be Tabouli, now can we?!? :)
> 

No, unfortunately. I spent half the night lying awake trying to think of an 
acronym only to have forgotten it by daylight. I agree, pzazz required!  I  
quite like M.E.T.A.M.O.R.P.H.O.S.I.S. as an acronym, but as I spent so long 
on my own.....

How's this? I wanted to include Steady State's relationship to George, as 
well as the emphasis on the troubled soul *without* bringing in evil, as I'm 
trying to get away from that particular dualism. I can't believe I'm taking 
it this seriously.

G.E.O.R.G.E.'S. S.I.S.T.E.R. D.I.A.N.A.     (D.I.A.N.A. for short)
Giving Evil Overlord's Regime Genuine Effort, Severus' Soul Is Severely 
Troubled, Eventually Rendering Defection Indeed  A Necessary Act.

Don't anyone ask me to repeat that, as I'm bound to have forgotten what it 
means.

Eloise


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




From Edblanning at aol.com  Fri Feb 22 20:04:00 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:04:00 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Bangers, Life Debts (WASBangers and their bangs )
Message-ID: <115.d00ebff.29a7fe30@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35609

In a message dated 22/02/02 16:51:36 GMT Standard Time, cindysphynx at home.com 
writes:


> But then again, if there really is something to this Life Debt 
> business, then I think a lot of people are living on credit.  Snape 
> owes James (PoA).  Pettigrew owes Harry (PoA).  Harry owes Dumbledore 
> (PoA in Quiddich).  Hermione owes Harry and Ron (PS/SS Troll).  
> Sirius owes Hermione and Harry (PoA Rescue).  Voldemort owes 
> Pettigrew (GoF Re-Birthing).  Ginny owes Harry (CoS Chamber).  Harry 
> owes the graveyard shadows (GoF).  Real Moody owes Dumbledore (GoF 
> Trunk).  Harry owes Dobby (GoF Second Task).  
> 
> Did I miss any?  
> 
> 

Yes, I think so.Harry owes Snape for saving him from Quirrel's attempt to 
unseat him at the Quidditch match and Dumbledore who just got to him just in 
time in the climax to PS/SS. 


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




From moongirlk at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 22 20:05:57 2002
From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 20:05:57 -0000
Subject: Bangers, Life Debts (WASBangers and their bangs )
In-Reply-To: <a55src+bv6t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a568b5+k55q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35610

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> Jake Storm wrote:
> 
> > What if, just a conjecture here, it wasn't just up to Dumbledore 
> when Snape 
> > came back to the Light? What if Dumbledore was ready to give the 
> man another 
> > chance, remembering the bright young man that he'd help to teach 
> years 
> > before, but somebody else, say Moody or that straight-shooting 
> Frank 
> > Longbottom, declared that they'd not beleive that Snape wasn't a 
> double 
> > until he'd given them something wildly juicy?
> > 
> > That gives us Dumbledore as good-hearted believer in the light 
side 
> of human 
> > nature, plus all the family fun of a bloody ambush!
> 
> Ah, this is just perfect!  Jake has dreamed up a fabulous ambush 
> compromise that makes perfect sense and, as an added bonus, is 
> actually based in canon.  

Now this might just work for me.  In fact, I've long been a little 
uneasy with the general assumption (as I percieve it) that Dumbledore 
is *the* head of the good guys.  Surely the ministry would have been 
involved when it was an out-and-out war, and while not everyone would 
have known about Snape (ruins the whole spy thing), *someone* in the 
ministry would be involved in big questions like defecting death 
eaters and such.  So this kills two birds for me.  But...

Cindy goes a little further:
> Maybe Dumbledore might believe Snape for no good reason, but Moody 
> would have none of it.  

I gotta defend my position here - I'm not saying Dumbledore had "no 
good reason" to believe Snape, just that I don't think the ambush 
thingy would constitute a good reason in Dumbledore's book.  It might 
work fine for the Aurors and such, and Dumbledore probably had some 
sort of reason that meant something to him.  I don't propose any 
theories of my own, I just can't quite swallow either that Dumbledore 
would consider an ambush a good reason or that he reads minds.  

In fact, we see in GoF that Moody doesn't 
> trust Snape at all, in the Pensieve or 13 years later.  So that 
gives 
> us a really great Big Bang scene in which Snape is weeping, 
crawling 
> on the floor, apologizing, begging to join Dumbledore. 

Wow.  I have a very different image in my mind of this scene.  It's 
far more decorous.  I guess at heart I'm just not a Banger.  Or I 
just can't *can't* imagine Snape crawling and begging (even if I have 
imagined him in a leotard and legwarmers).

Dumbledore is, 
> uh, twinkling. But Moody is there, his two normal eyes swiveling 
> wildly around in his head, his itchy trigger finger stroking his 
> wand, restraining himself from turning Snape into a hedgehog and 
> bouncing him around the office.  It is Moody who *demands* DE 
corpses 
> as the price of admission.  Dumbledore is a Tough strong wizard, 
but 
> he goes along with Moody, not wishing to be turned into a hedgehog 
> himself.  Nobody, but nobody, is willing to tangle with Alastor 
Moody.

I don't know that the gang's all there in my mind.  I can accept an 
ambush, but I think I have to separate it from the "conversion".  
Maybe he set up an ambush at some point after he was converted, 
working with Moody or someone.  

But if it was a part of the same incident as his joining up with the 
good guys, wouldn't it be cool if it happened like this?:

-Good guys are assembled somewhere doing whatever it is good guys do 
when they assemble.

-Enter Snape, swooping battily.  Moody and several others go for 
their wands, Snape disarms them in an instant.

-Collecting their wands, he grabs a chair from the table, swings it 
around and, straddling it (his cloak billowing still more battily), 
says (note the following is a rather loose paraphrase written in my 
words, not his): "Listen, I've had just about enough of this Death 
Eater @#$%.  They whinge at the Dark Lord's feet and then run around 
torturing Muggles.  Like there's any sport in that!  They don't even 
*believe* all the @#%#$ they're spouting, and half of them are such 
dunderheads they can't even brew a basic potion.  They get off on 
picking on people weaker than they are, I can dig that, but 
*honestly*, they're always pushing things too far.  The baby-torture 
stuff (he winks at Marina off-stage) is just disgusting and I'm 
pretty sure some of them missed the point entirely and are actually 
*eating* people.  And don't even get me started on the "Dork Lord".  
What a tool! Obviously I've made a mistake associating myself with 
such morons, and I can't in good conscience allow them to figure out 
immortality.  Nobody should be subjected to such raging bores 
eternally.  So here's what I propose..."

Now, if *that* were Snapes conversion scene, I could buy the ambush 
as being a part of it.

Cindy explained for me how Dumbledore spun the sparing of Pettigrew 
for Harry's benefit:

> I think Dumbledore praises Harry because he doesn't have any other 
> choice.  His other option is to scream, "Geez, Harry, thanks a 
whole 
> freakin' lot!  You let a murder get away scot free, you doomed your 
> godfather to live life on the run, and you did it *knowing* that 
the 
> murderer was going to help Voldemort return.  Everything that 
happens 
> from this point forward is blood on *your* hands; I hope you're 
> happy!"  Mmmm, that sounds a little out of character.  

Point taken, and enjoyed!

> 
> But then again, if there really is something to this Life Debt 
> business, then I think a lot of people are living on credit.  Snape 
> owes James (PoA).  Pettigrew owes Harry (PoA).  Harry owes 
Dumbledore 
> (PoA in Quiddich).  Hermione owes Harry and Ron (PS/SS Troll).  
> Sirius owes Hermione and Harry (PoA Rescue).  Voldemort owes 
> Pettigrew (GoF Re-Birthing).  Ginny owes Harry (CoS Chamber).  
Harry 
> owes the graveyard shadows (GoF).  Real Moody owes Dumbledore (GoF 
> Trunk).  Harry owes Dobby (GoF Second Task).  
> 
> Did I miss any?  

I'm sure there's more!  Let's see... well, Buckbeak owes Harry and 
Hermione and Dumbledore, Penelope owes Hermione for telling her to 
use a mirror to look around corners, Harry owes Snape for saving him 
from Quirrel's broom-hex, and theoretically Harry owes Voldemort for 
untying him and giving him back his wand.

kimberly
who owes a lot of you an entertainment-debt, if not a life-debt!




From nancyr at esatclear.ie  Sat Feb 23 00:54:42 2002
From: nancyr at esatclear.ie (RYANS)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:54:42 -0800
Subject: why would hagrid....
References: <a4ttvv+irse@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000001c1bc0e$20b0b460$2e8691c2@nancyr>

No: HPFGUIDX 35611

Hagrid seems to stick up for Snape even though generally he doesn't do so for most teachers. Why is this? Maybe he knows about his deatheater past? Is it possible dumbledore told him? Just curious....
        lazyscientist


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





From cindysphynx at home.com  Fri Feb 22 21:11:19 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 21:11:19 -0000
Subject: Snape, Trevor, Neville and Frank Longbottom (WAS Bangers, Life Debts )
In-Reply-To: <F208XulOBq3kbmBkDG200021ee6@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a56c5n+knbu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35612

Jake wrote (on proof of Snape's contrition):

>Maybe all Aurors are Tremendous Hardcases, especially at this late 
date 
> in the war against Voldie, which isn't exactly going well. Perhaps 
they are 
> all of a mind to think that Snape is leading them down the garden 
path, that 
> his return to The Light is a bunch of roadapples. There might be 
plenty of 
> Aurors and Hit-Wizards that demand physical proof of his contrition.

You know, at first I was going to fight you on this.  I kind of like 
the idea that Moody has an itchy trigger finger and demands a body 
count as proof of Snape's conversion.  After all, Moody is Tough, 
experienced, suspicious of Snape and paranoid, so it all fits.

But then I started to waver.  War or no war, it is quite clear in GoF 
that Dumbledore and Moody both know that Dumbledore orders Moody 
around.  It is not the other way around:

**"Alastor,"  Dumbledore said warningingly.

** "I don't know where Barty Crouch is," Dumbledore told Moody, "but 
it is essential that we find him."  "I'm onto it," growled Moody.

** "The real Moody would not have removed you from my sight after 
what happened tonight," [Dumbledore said].

**  In the Pensieve, Moody "was wearing a look of deep skepticism 
behind Dumbledore's back."

No, the "DE Heads on a Stake" scenario won't work just based on Moody 
intimidating Dumbledore into it.  I think I have to let popular Frank 
Longbottom in on the action, too.

So we re-set the "Snape Conversion" scene.  Dumbledore, Moody and 
Longbottom are there to hear what Snape, a known DE, has to say.  
Snape enters a broken man, shoulders shaking, tears streaming down 
his hooked nose, greasy hair askew, a heaving wreck of a wizard, more 
vulnerable than he has ever been, knowing he is a dead man if this 
doesn't work. Snape promises to behave.

Dumbledore says, "OK.  Works for me.  Welcome back."

Snape starts to rise from his fetal position on the floor.  
Longbottom freezes and gives Dumbledore a look.  A look that 
says "Not so fast, Hombre." Longbottom explains the idea of requiring 
the Ambush.  Snape is appalled -- he had just talked Dumbledore into 
taking him back, and Longbottom was ruining *everything*.  Longbottom 
and Moody finally convince Dumbledore, and Snape is forced to betray 
his friends solely because of Longbottom's meddling.

Fast forward to the present at Hogwarts.  Frank's son Neville is at 
Hogwarts with Trevor, the useless toad.  Neville keeps losing Trevor 
and always works himself into quite a state over it.  Snape bullies 
Neville mercilessly, causing Snape to be the thing Neville most 
fears.  For totally inexplicable reasons, Snape also harbors 
hostility toward Trevor.    

What's going on here?

I submit that Snape hates Neville because Frank Longbottom screwed up 
the deal Snape had tried to strike with Dumbledore.  To make matters 
worse from Snape's POV, Frank (with Moody) became a hero for killing 
and arresting Snape's best friends, probably after Frank assured 
Snape that no one would be killed.  Snape, who is especially good at 
holding grudges and pursuing them all the way into the next 
generation, detests Neville as a result.

But why does Snape seem to abhor Neville's useless toad?  Because 
Trevor is no ordinary toad, that's why.  You see, Frank Longbottom 
wasn't born yesterday.  When Evil Mrs. Lestrange and her gang shoved 
their way into the Longbottom's home, Frank worked a quick bit of 
magic on himself and his wife.  He deposited their souls into 
Trevor.  Neville has to take care of Trevor, because if anything 
happens to Trevor, Neville really will have lost his parents. 
Neville, for lack of a better term, is the, uh, Toad Keeper, because 
he was the only other person present when the spell was performed.

As we know, Neville has never mentioned to the trio that his parents 
are at St. Mungos.  It has always bothered me that Neville goes to 
visit parents who do not even recognize him.  What's the point in 
that, after all?  Well, the point is that the doctors at St. Mungos 
are trying to work out a way to put the souls of Frank and his wife 
back into their bodies.  Neville goes to St. Mungos to bring Trevor 
whenever the doctors think they have a new experimental spell that 
might work.  So far, no luck.

OK, the canon is kind of thin, granted, I'll give you that.  I mean, 
what do you want from me?  This is a theory that has three central 
characters with no lines at all:  Frank, his wife, and Trevor.  
Nevertheless, there is a smidgen of canon.  Actually, more than a 
smidgen -- a whole scene of canon.

In PoA, Neville botches a shrinking solution, turning it orange.  For 
some unknown reason, Neville happens to have Trevor with him in 
class.  The presence of a student's pet in class is largely 
unprecedented in canon.  I don't recall Ron bringing Scabbers to 
class; Scabbers stays in Ron's bed so that Sirius can attack him 
there while no one else is around.  Hedwig stays in the owlry. 
Hermione doesn't bring Crookshanks to class.  Indeed, it is a bit 
curious that Neville brings his precious toad with him to the class 
with the very teacher Neville fears most.

Anyway, Snape, knowing that the potion is wrong, threatens to feed it 
to a helpless toad.  Snape is actually disappointed when the potion 
doesn't work.  Snape's disappointment isn't that Snape is just 
itching to rub out a toad.  No, Snape is disappointed that he was 
convinced that he found a devious way to snuff out Frank Longbottom 
once and for all, at the hand of Frank's own son no less, and it 
doesn't work because that meddlesome Hermione Granger rescued 
Neville.  Snape can do nothing more but take a few points from 
Gryffindor for screwing up his evil plan for revenge.  

But Snape would *never* snuff out a toad knowing that it contains the 
souls of two people, the Snape fans cry.  Oh, but Snape would, you 
know he would, deep down you know.  Snape will do *anything* to get 
revenge.  Snape outed Lupin.  Snape turned Black in knowing Black 
would be killed.  So yeah, Snape would be perfectly willing to force 
Neville to brew the potion that kills the last hope that Neville will 
have his parents back.  

Oh, that Snape is a bad man.

Cindy




From skelkins at attbi.com  Fri Feb 22 21:47:01 2002
From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 21:47:01 -0000
Subject: Lupin's Edge/Twins' Edge? (was Why Suspect Lupin?)
In-Reply-To: <a4rutg+gemg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a56e8l+hic7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35613

Cindy, who only beats up men, wrote:

> You like Edge; I like Tough. 

Actually, I'm beginning to think that what I like is really just a
certain type of sensitivity.  I prefer the neurotic to the well-
adjusted, the sly to the straightforward, the passive-aggressive to 
the confrontational, the helpers to the heroes, and the sadists to 
the thugs.  I like people who when placed under pressure, neither 
bend nor Crack, but *splinter.*  That's why I can appreciate all 
those poor SYCOPHANTS so much, while also enjoying the heroically 
Edgy.  And it's why Tough, for the most part, leaves me cold.

> Does Voldemort have Edge? 

No.  Tom Riddle had Edge.  Voldemort has gone *over* the Edge.

Once you have gone all the way over your Edge, then you can really no 
longer be said to have it.

> Does Snape have Edge? 

Yeah, Snape lives on the Edge.  Snape's holding onto the Edge with 
his last two fingernails.

> I don't think I get Edge. Edge is harder to evaluate than Tough.

It is, isn't it?  I went looking through on-line slang dictionaries
in search of a workable definition of Edge.  I couldn't find one, 
although I did learn a number of exciting new ways to describe the 
act of vomiting.


Kimberley wrote:

> Yay! I'm normal! 

LOL!  

This is surely the only time this phrase has *ever* been heard on the 
Internet!

> AND I get to enjoy the Shack scene without feeling like a heel. 
> This is great! I love Edge! Ahh, that feels so liberating.

<twisted smile>

I see that you're ready for the intermediate lesson, Grasshopper.  
Want to learn to read the Graveyard scene in GoF as black comedy?  
C'mon...You know you want to.  Good and evil are only in your 
*mind*...

I wrote that the Twins' pranks are usually well-meaning, if sometimes
insensitive, but at other times show elements of malice.  I cited 
their constant attacks on Percy's badges as an example of the latter.

Kimberley wrote:

> I kinda think that this, like the example you mentioned with Ginny, 
> is not about malice, but about an attempt to "cheer" him up, 
> although in another sense of the word. Percy's wound up tight, and 
> takes everything (including himself) very seriously. . . . I get 
> the impression that the twins' teasing is just an ill-advised 
> attempt at getting him to lighten up. I think Fred and George are 
> trying (in the way that is their specialty) to teach him to laugh 
> at himself. 

I certainly agree that this is how they would defend their actions.
But I don't think it's accidental that they go after Percy on 
precisely the same points for which he is always being praised by 
their mother, or for which they themselves are always being 
*criticized* by their mother.

There's genuine hostility there, I'd say.  Not, of course, that this
precludes love.

> It's obvious they love their brother, or they wouldn't bother 
> forcing him to spend Christmas with them, so I don't think the rest 
> of the teasing is malicious. 

I agree that they love him.  I also think that much of their teasing 
is malicious.

> So basically what I'm saying is that Fred and George are sort of 
> thoughtless, but I think they mean well. Judging from the way they 
> zoom in on Percy's sore points, they do have the insight, so when 
> they grow up enough to realize how they push people's buttons maybe 
> they'll develop the kind of strenght and control that will make 
> them characters with Edge too

I don't see the Twins ever becoming 'Edgy,' per se.  They're too 
direct and too straightforward, and not sufficiently thoughtful or 
sensitive.  Honestly, I don't think that they way they go after Percy 
shows a terrific deal of insight.  They're not really very subtle at 
all, are they?  Like a pair of human Bludgers, the Twins are.

(Of course, a great deal of what makes Percy such a tempting target in
the first place is that it requires absolutely *no* insight to figure 
out how to get his goat.  <sigh>  Poor Percy.  I always feel for 
Percy.)


-- Elkins




From NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com  Fri Feb 22 22:09:37 2002
From: NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com (NOTaMuggleFamily at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:09:37 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] why would hagrid....
Message-ID: <35.226ef66a.29a81ba1@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35614


I think perhaps isn't too keen on Snape himself, but since Dumbledore trusts 
Severus, Hagrid says 'thats good enough for me'.  Also, which teachers does 
Hagrid NOT necessarily stick up for?  
~shahara in wi

<< Hagrid seems to stick up for Snape even though generally he doesn't do so 
for most teachers. Why is this? Maybe he knows about his deatheater past? Is 
it possible dumbledore told him? Just curious....
        lazyscientist >>



shahara lefay
ordained pagan priestess 
**serendipitously smitten with severus snape**
shahara9 at aol.com
HAPPY BIRTHDAY MR RICKMAN



From skelkins at attbi.com  Fri Feb 22 23:53:38 2002
From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 23:53:38 -0000
Subject: Azkaban and dementors (WAS: The character I pity most)
In-Reply-To: <a50ob4+taja@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a56lm2+37b0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35615

Judy wrote:

> Even without an afterlife, though, I still think some experiences 
> are so awful that one would be better off dead.  I think about this 
> whenever the topic of Azkaban comes up.  It seems to me that 
> throwing people in Azkaban for life is far crueler than executing 
> them.  

I agree.  And it would seem that it not uncommonly turns out to be
effectively a death sentence, anyway.  Sirius claims that a good 
number of the prisoners lose their will to live and perish: 
presumably they stop eating and then just waste away.  Death by 
despair.  Horrible.

Before the release of GoF, my friends and I found ourselves often
wondering whether Rowling really meant for Azkaban and the dementors 
to be quite as horrifying as we had found them in PoA.  In many ways, 
I was very pleased by all of the "the dementors are our natural 
allies" plot hints in GoF, as well as by Sirius' tale in Padfoot 
Returns and the behavior of people in the various Pensieve scenes, 
because all of these indicated to me that indeed, we *had* been meant 
to read them as every bit as dreadful as they are.

> Perhaps Dumbledore agrees, and that is one reason why he's so 
> opposed to the dementors?  

This seems strongly implied, to be sure.

I also find myself wondering about the practice on purely pragmatic
grounds.  Not all of the prisoners in Azkaban are there for life.
There are lesser sentences: Crouch's recommendation for Ludo Bagman's
sentence was cut off by the mutterings of the crowd, but the phrasing
indicates that it was to be a finite imprisonment; Hagrid is sent 
there for a short spell.  Yet in PoA, Lupin claims that time spent
in the company of the dementors tends to make people, well...inhumane.
He claims that they render people soulless and evil.  

I can't help but wonder if this really makes them the wisest choice
for guards of a prison to which criminals are sometimes incarcerated
for finite periods of time.  It seems rather self-defeating, don't
you think?  What does somebody who has managed to survive their
ten-year sentence, for example, emerge as (assuming that they had
neither Sirius' knowledge of his own innocence nor his animagus
abilities to help sustain them)?  For that matter, how much of 
younger Crouch's black and inhumane and certainly soulless-seeming 
malice might have been a by-product of having been rescued from near-
death-by-dementor-despair?

Oh, it just seems like such an obviously bad idea to me.  It's 
like anti-rehabilitation or something.

> I was very surprised when Peter was *happy* that Harry planned to 
> send him to Azkaban, rather than let Sirius and Remus kill him.  

I don't think that he was.  He was overwhelmingly relieved not to be 
slaughtered on the spot, but I don't think that he was at all happy 
about it.  I always read more than a touch of veiled hostility in
that fawning "it's more than I deserve."  Is there any real gratitude
there at all?  There's certainly genuine self-loathing.  But I think 
that mainly there's an enormous deal of passive-aggression underlying 
that statement.  Mystic bond or no mystic bond, Pettigrew was 
thinking dark dire thoughts about Harry when he said that, I'd be 
willing to bet, and I'm sure that they got even darker a moment
later, when Harry commented that "if anyone deserves that place, he 
does."

> If it were me, I'd be saying "Please!  Kill me now!  Anything other 
> than the dementors!"  

Well, where there's life, there's hope.  Dementors scare me witless,
but I still don't think that I'd ever be able to ask for certain
death over the prospect of some *future* agony.  The dementors weren't
standing right there in front of him.  Remus and Sirius were.

And, of course, he did escape.  So he called it right.


-- Elkins




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Sat Feb 23 01:19:30 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 01:19:30 -0000
Subject: Life Debts, Ambushes, Toads, and other Snapethings 
In-Reply-To: <a55src+bv6t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a56qn2+iom7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35616

Cindy said that the "Mercy" theory involves Lily saving Snape's life.
In reply, I wrote:
>> Wait a minute, Cindy!  Didn't you propose that Snapes owes 
>> *Dumbledore* a life debt?  Because Dumbledore could have killed 
>> him, but spared him instead? I thought that was Mercy, or Mercy II. 

And Cindy replied:
> Life debt to Lily, Life debt to Dumbledore.  Let's face it -- both 
> are so *lame*.  But no...  My initial description of Mercy was as 
> follows: "In this theory, Lily does something truly heroic to 
> save Snape's life while they are at Hogwarts...."<

Cindy, you challenge me at your peril!!! 
In message 34758, Cindy said:
> Uh, maybe there has to be an additional theory, which, for lack of a 
> better name, I will call "Mercy". Maybe Dumbledore had Snape on the 
> ropes in the war and was in a position to blast Snape to little 
> slimy pieces. Dumbledore (inexplicably?) decides to spare Snape's
> life....< 

So, there! That's what happens when you say that my dear Snape is "a 
bad man."

Cindy added:
> Can we just let Mercy die a dignified, quiet death now?  Please?

Certainly, Cindy, certainly.  All you have to do is say, "Underneath 
it is all, Snape is really a wonderful guy, whom I like very much."  
And mean it. 

Cindy signed off:
> Cindy (wondering how Crouch Jr. is able to kill his father when his 
> father sprung him from Azkaban, which ought to create at least a 
> mini-Life Debt)

Yeah, not to mention, Crouch Sr. sprung Crouch Jr. from his loins (You 
can tell that I've been reading the Bible a lot lately.)  You'd think 
that would create a *big* life debt. 

Jake and Cindy then went cruising off, claiming that even though 
Dumbledore was willing to trust that Snape was on his side, various 
Aurors demanded an Ambush as proof of Snape's loyalty.

I really don't like the Ambush theory.  My beloved Snapey doesn't 
ambush his friends.  So, you ask, how can I contradict this claim that 
the Aurors would demand an Ambush?  Easy. I claim that Longbottom and 
Moody didn't even *know* that Snape had offered to spy for Dumbledore. 
 In fact, I think it's likely that *only* Dumbledore knew Snape was a 
spy.  Think about it.  The more people who know Snape is spying, the 
more likely he is to be compromised.  Dumbledore suspected that he had 
a leak in his operation, so why would he go around telling people that 
Snape was spying for him, when it could get back to Voldy? 

I will grant that Cindy's Toad argument is brilliantly creative. 
Cindy said:
> Trevor is no ordinary toad... When Evil Mrs. Lestrange and her gang 
> shoved their way into the Longbottom's home, Frank ...deposited 
> their souls into Trevor. Neville has to take care of Trevor,
> because if anything happens to Trevor, Neville really will have
> lost his parents. Neville, for lack of a better term, is the, uh, 
> Toad Keeper, because he was the only other person present when the
> spell was performed....

Cindy adds as proof, the fact that Neville also keeps Trevor with him:
> For some unknown reason, Neville happens to have Trevor with him in 
> class. The presence of a student's pet in class is largely 
> unprecedented in canon. I don't recall Ron bringing Scabbers to 
> class; Scabbers stays in Ron's bed so that Sirius can attack him 
> there while no one else is around....

And Cindy says that Snape was trying to destroy the Longbottoms when 
he made Trevor drink Neville's Shrinking Solution:
> Snape would be perfectly willing to force Neville to brew the potion
> that kills the last hope that Neville will have his parents back. 

Creative, but I don't think it's true.  First of all, I think other 
kid *do* carry their pets around. Scabbers was often in Ron's pocket 
or backpack.  The reason Sirius attacked Ron's bed is that it was 
night and Sirius expected Ron to be there, with Scabbers.  Also, I 
don't see why there would need to be a "Toad Keeper", someone who 
would have to always stay with the toad.  Given Neville's 
forgetfulness, it would be safer to leave Trevor with Neville's Gran. 
Also, Neville lost Trevor at Platform 9.75 in PS/SS, and his Gran was 
just exasperated -- if that toad had her child's soul, I think she'd 
be a bit more worried.  Anyway, Neville's uncle bought Neville the 
toad after Neville got into Hogwarts; it says so in PS/SS. 

And most importantly, I'm sure that my dearest Snape is a nice guy and 
would have given Trevor an antidote if Trevor had gotten sick.
  
Judy




From mlfrasher at aol.com  Sat Feb 23 01:11:43 2002
From: mlfrasher at aol.com (mlfrasher at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 20:11:43 EST
Subject: Snape/George....I'm not an expert...
Message-ID: <162.948959b.29a8464f@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35617

...nor do I play one on TV...or on this list... I have NO idea what or if 
this has a 'name' with the group and apologise in advance becuase I'm one of 
those people who can't keep track of all of them...

*lurk mode off*

Elkins reiterated:

>  Marina's original introductory post seems to place a strong emphasis 
on the Prank as a catalytic agent for Snape's mistrust of the Light 
side and his subsequent belief that the Dark Was His Friend.
 
I think the Prank was a long line in a series of 'life experiences' that 
enforced his feelings on people in general.  I think he was a rat bastard as 
a kid and was probably fine with it, generally out to get students who 
annoyed him.  Gee, I could name a dozen real life people like this.

Marina on George:

> Now I believe that Snape originally joined the DEs not because he 
> had any conviction in their <ahem> ideals, but because they were the
> enemies of his enemies, and he thought they might treat him decently
> and not try to feed him to any werewolves..

My gut feeling is that he agreed with them, and then something happened 
within the DE's that threatened his own survival and he saw that this was 
definitely not the way to go in life, if he wanted to keep on living AND 
(this is important) do it on his own terms.  It's great to HAVE minions, but 
you have to have a sheep-like mentality to be one.  Severus doesn't seem like 
a sheep to me and I think that this would annoy him after a while.  
Independent people have a hard time with taking orders without having much 
input in them.


>  ...his disillusionment with the DEs was not a sudden 
epiphanous revelation, but rather, a gradual realization that
Voldemort and his followers were evil: their motives selfish, their 
means unjustified, their ends corrupt, and their assumptions just 
plain *wrong.*  

I have a problem with theories that depict moral quandaries of right or 
wrong.  If there's anything that Snape has given us in the books -- it's a 
nice grey area.  Him suddenly having an epiphany, like some ray of sunshine 
that hits him from the sky and all the sudden enlightens him, seems all hokey 
to me.  I agree to the gradual realization that this isn't the way to live, 
again through some personal threat to survival, and then realizing that 
living this way is an isolated and horrible life.  Groups generally bent on 
achieving power through the destruction of anything that stands in their way 
generally self destruct.  Any attempt to make a judgment as an individual 
would be met with suspicion - maybe because it was out of tune with the 
group, or perceived as a power play for dominance.  It would be a paranoid 
life and pretty boring after a while.  I could easily see Severus thinking to 
himself one day -- "Ok, Dark Lord, I *get* it, destroy our enemies, take 
control, you hate all those who oppose you, all Muggles, the color pink, your 
father, yeadda yadda, could we *please* move on now?!"  Wouldn't the "I'm 
eviler than you pose-down" get a little stale?

He could have realized after this personal revelation, that no one, Muggle or 
Wizard, would ever be safe if Voldemort succeeded.

I concur with those who would rather take a stick in the eye than see the 
Lily-Snape-James triangle be a reality in cannon.  I dunno it just makes me 
think of the Monty Python line in Holy Grail where the peasant calls the Lady 
of the Lake a 'watery tart' after King Arthur says he's been ordained as king 
by the lady Excalibur.  The relationship to our story?  Why does it always 
gotta be some romantic scene or some chick that turns a guy's life 
around...???

margaraeta, who hopes she doesn't sound too cynical 


*lurk mode on*




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





From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 23 02:47:38 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 02:47:38 -0000
Subject: Circumstances of Lucius' death (was Acronym for George, Draco if Lucius died
In-Reply-To: <a548ib+okda@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a56vsa+o6ib@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35618

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:

>But I have to admit that at the climax of GoF, 
> Voldemort very much did strike me as the Idiot Villain.  He's got 
> Harry helpless, tied to the gravestone, all he has to go is 
> mutter "Avada Kedavra," and all his problems are over.  So what 
>does he do?  First he gloats, then he has harry untied, and *gives 
>him his wand back*.  At that point I was banging my head against the 
> book and yelling, "You stupid shmuck, do you have any idea how many 
> Evil Overlord Rules are you breaking?"

Yes, but there WAS a very good reason for Voldemert to do more than 
simply AK Harry.  He NEEDED a big impressive show in front of his 
DE's.  The first time that Voldemort tried to kill Harry, he not only 
destroyed his own body, he also destroyed the illusion of 
invincibility that he had so carefully acquired.  A few DE's will 
follow Voldemort no matter what (Barty Jr. comes to mind), but others 
only follow him because they figure he's the "biggest bully on the 
playground" and they'd rather be on the winning side (Pettigrew, 
Malfoy, etc.)  For the sake of those DE's, Voldemort needs to show 
that he is truly "Greater and more terrible than he ever was."  
Merely killing Harry will not solve the problem of his bruised 
reputation; killing Harry as part of a big show for the DE's will. 

This is the whole point of his carefully planned graveyard scene, 
indeed of his year-long plan to capture Harry.  Voldemort could have 
used almost any wizard/witch for "blood of an enemy" but chose to use 
Harry's blood so that he would then be capable of killing Harry.  
Then, body restored, he summons the DE's so they can witness his 
killing of Harry.  Voldemort isn't "gloating" in the sense that he is 
saying, "I've got you now, Harry.  I'm going to kill you soon."  No, 
all his remarks are directed at the DE's, or are for their benefit.

"You know, of course, that they have called this boy my downfall?"  
He then explains to them that Harry DIDN'T survive because he is 
inherently stronger than Voldemort, but because of Lily's 
sacrifice.  "...but no matter, I can touch him now."  Then, after 
scolding the DE's for not searching for him, it is time to prove, 
once and for all, that he is truly more powerful than Harry. 

"And here he is...the boy you all believed had been my downfall..."  
Voldemort moved slowly forward and turned to face Harry.  He raised 
his wand.  "Crucio!"

All that he does from this point on, torturing Harry, teasing Harry, 
giving him wand so they can play at some mockery of a wizard's duel, 
is meant to show how much more powerful Voldemort is than Harry.  In 
this way, Voldemort plans to reestablish himself as the "biggest 
bully on the playground."






From brewpub44 at earthlink.net  Sat Feb 23 03:16:53 2002
From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 03:16:53 -0000
Subject: Sirius and the Dark Mark
In-Reply-To: <a554e0+b162@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a571j5+9ihi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35619

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hollygolightly95" 
<miss_hollygolightly at h...> wrote:
> >--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hollygolightly95" 
> wrote: 
> > > If all Death Eaters have the Dark Mark on their arm, it should 
be 
> > > easy enough to identify them. If Sirius never was a Death 
Eater, 
> he doesn't carry the mark, so why was that not enough to prove his 
> > > innocence? Why was he sent to Azkaban without even a trial?  
> > > holly 
>  
> >IIRC, the Dark Marks vanished when LV was defeated by the infant 
> >Potter. They did not return until GoF when LV was "reincarnated" 
by 
> >Pettigrew's spell. So it would not have been detectable when 
Sirius 
> >was arrested. 
> > 
> >A Barkeep in Diagon Alley 
> > 
> 
> Greetings from London.
> All points taken. And very valuable ones too - thanks.
> One of the reasons I raised the question is that I thought it would 
> help Sirius to clear his name at the end of GoF. If he was a DE and 
> carried the Mark it should have returned as it did for Snape and 
> Karkaroff. 
> Unless Fudge isn't interested of course. I agree with the 
suggestion 
> that he may have had his reasons to see Sirius framed. 
> 
> Holly.

OK, now I see your point. Yeah, makes perfect sense to me. Sirius 
should be able to turn into his normal self, and show these people 
that he does not have the Dark Mark, and that indeed he was 
wrongfully imprisoned. So absolutely, he can now prove to Fudge that 
he is not a DE. He couldn't clear his name before (his original 
trial), but now it's a piece of cake.

Cheers!

A Barkeep in Diagon Alley




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 23 03:26:06 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 03:26:06 -0000
Subject: Lupin's animagus form?
In-Reply-To: <F129SmqZGUTwSIQK9VP0000cd7d@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a5724e+9ajq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35620

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jake Storm" <that1guy_hp at h...> wrote:
> Gwen asked:
> >1. Does the fact that Remus is a werewolf adversely effect or 
somehow
> change his nature sufficiently to render Animagus transformation 
>moot (i.e., he'll become a wolf)?;
> >2. To what extent does the wolf dictate his true animal form? Is it
> possible that he could in fact transform at will into some other
> animal, and if so, which animal? What would it reveal about his 
character?
[Snip]
> 
> If he were to attempt to become an animagus now, after 
> years of suffering through becoming the wolf, he might well be 
>locked into that, as it has become such an inherent part of his 
>psyche. Again, just my opinion.
> 
> Of course, it could go the other direction, where his revulsion 
>over his lupine side forces his animagus form to be something docile 
>and unthreatening. 

>Bunny rabbit, anyone?

Ok, but only if it's a bunny with "edge."  Maybe the bunny "with big 
fangs" from Monty Python's "Holy Grail" movie.




From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 23 03:23:39 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 03:23:39 -0000
Subject: Flower girls (Was "Names for proper Death Eater ladies")
In-Reply-To: <00a101c1bbb5$a6ce57e0$0797cd18@charterpipeline.com>
Message-ID: <a571vr+104vi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35621

--- "Terry van Ettinger" <ganvira at e...> wrote:

<<
Exactly! Who would suspect that someone with a name
like Pansy or Millie would be a death eater? The names
sound so innocent that no one would think, upon first
hearing them, that the people to whom those names
belonged were leaning to the dark side.
>>

Does it strike anyone else that there is a lot of floral
imagery with the girls' names? We start out with Petunia
and Lily (who were surely cursed from the outset, having
been given names like that). Then Pansy, Narcissa,
Lavender, and Myrtle show up. None of these characters
are likeable, except Lily and maybe Lavender. Kind of
interesting, ne?

BTW, for fun, I looked up what each of these flowers
traditionally represents. Only Pansy's doesn't fit in
some way with her character, either by being ironic or
entirely apropos.

Lavender - Constancy
Lily - Purity and humility (also associated with Christ)
Myrtle - Love, mirth, and joy
Narcissus - Egotism
Pansy - Thoughtful recollection
Petunia - Anger and resentment

You could even go a little farther and connect Aunt
Marge to Marjoram ("comfort and consolation" - LOL).

I got all these interpretations from a flower retail
site, so I'm not sure exactly how accurate they are...
then again, "anger and resentment" doesn't sell
flowers, so I imagine it's pretty trustworthy.
http://www.usretailflowers.com/





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Sat Feb 23 03:31:34 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 03:31:34 -0000
Subject: Snape/George....I'm not an expert...
In-Reply-To: <162.948959b.29a8464f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a572em+rge8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35622

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., mlfrasher at a... wrote:
> >  ...his disillusionment with the DEs was not a sudden 
> epiphanous revelation, but rather, a gradual realization that
> Voldemort and his followers were evil: their motives selfish, 
their 
> means unjustified, their ends corrupt, and their assumptions just 
> plain *wrong.*  
> 
> I have a problem with theories that depict moral quandaries of 
right or 
> wrong.  If there's anything that Snape has given us in the books --
 it's a 
> nice grey area.  

The existence of gray does not preclude the existence of black and 
white.  In fact, you can't have gray at all unless you've got black 
and white first.  In any case, regardless of my own view on the 
matter, I don't think JKR is trying to present a morally 
relativistic universe in the books; I think real evil exists in the 
HP universe, and Voldemort is meant to represent it.

> Him suddenly having an epiphany, like some ray of sunshine 
> that hits him from the sky and all the sudden enlightens him, 
seems all hokey 
> to me.  
> I agree to the gradual realization that this isn't the way to 
live, 
> again through some personal threat to survival, and then realizing 
that 
> living this way is an isolated and horrible life.  

I'm all for lack of epiphanies (George nods enthusiastically from 
the sidelines), but the idea that Snape's defection from the DEs was 
based on the purely pragmatic realization that there's nothing in it 
for him doesn't work for me.  I don't think it would've served to 
win Dumbledore's trust and regard -- I think Dumbledore would've had 
to see evidence of sincere moral repentance on Snape's part before 
he cut any deals.  Plus, on purely aesthetic grounds, I just find it 
less interesting to reduce Snape's motives to mere survivalism; it 
removes much of that "principle vs inclination" tension that makes 
the character so fascinating for me.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com






From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 23 03:33:36 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 03:33:36 -0000
Subject: why would hagrid....
In-Reply-To: <35.226ef66a.29a81ba1@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a572ig+8mb0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35623

--- NOTaMuggleFamily at a... wrote:

<<
I think perhaps isn't too keen on Snape himself, but
since Dumbledore trusts Severus, Hagrid says 'thats
good enough for me'.  Also, which teachers does
Hagrid NOT necessarily stick up for?
>>

I think he probably would stick up for any one of them,
but Snape is the only one accused of larceny, murder,
and general badness. Hagrid's defense of Snape is a little
striking, though, considering his Gryffindor bias.

*Pokes nose back into books*

Almost done rereading SS! I'm surprised at how much more
I'm picking up this time, now that I know the characters
and all.





From margdean at erols.com  Sat Feb 23 04:24:50 2002
From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 23:24:50 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: why would hagrid....
References: <a572ig+8mb0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C771992.4CB097D6@erols.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35624

-- NOTaMuggleFamily at a... wrote:


> I think perhaps isn't too keen on Snape himself, but
> since Dumbledore trusts Severus, Hagrid says 'thats
> good enough for me'.  Also, which teachers does
> Hagrid NOT necessarily stick up for?

Lockhart?  Hagrid doesn't seem to think much of him.  But then,
none of the rest of the staff do, either.


--Margaret Dean
  <margdean at erols.com>



From brewpub44 at earthlink.net  Sat Feb 23 04:40:25 2002
From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 04:40:25 -0000
Subject: A Different Look at Snape
Message-ID: <a576fp+h363@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35625

Cheers!

I wanted to put forth a different look at Snape, more specifically 
what a nasty teacher he is to his students.

I recently finished Stephen Amrose's book, Band of Brothers (the HBO 
miniseries is based of the same name is based on this book). In this 
book, there is the (non-fictional) character of Lt. Sobol.

Lt. Sobol commands Easy Company of the 506th Airborne (later the 
101st Airborne) through their airborne training boot-camp. He is a 
tough commander, puts his men through utter hell, and they absolutely 
despise him for it. The examples are numerous, here is an example:

One day, he tells his men that the evening's standard 6-mile run up a 
2000-ft hill has been postponed. He has the cooks prepare spaghetti 
for dinner, and the men, realizing they have the night off, overeat 
(spaghetti being a rare treat in WWII army mess halls). But right 
after dinner, Sobol changes his mind, and commands them to run. I'll 
skip the gory details, but imaging trying to run up a 2000-ft hill 
with full packs and a stomach full of pasta -- it dont' feel good.

But at the end of the book, the author interviews the survivors of 
Easy Company, those men who survived D-Day, Operation Market Garden, 
the Battle of the Bulge, and the raid on Hitler's Berchtesgarden 
(sp?). He asks them about Lt. Sobol. To a man, they all say how much 
they hated and despised him. But also to a man, they say "We would be 
dead if not for the training Sobol put us through. He made us tough." 
(quote paraphrased).

So, what does this do with Snape (and why do I think he is the best 
character after the Big Three):

Snape knows potion making is dangerous. There are plenty of examples 
through the four books. Look at the polyjuice potion backfiring, how 
Neville keeps melting his cauldrons, etc. Also during the antidote 
scenes in GoF. He definitely threatens Harry with poison, if Harry's 
antidote doesn't work, Harry will be dead (of course Madam Pomfrey is 
around, so I doubt the threat is real). Yes, he is reall nasty, and 
serious.

But the Wizard world is nasty and serious. Potions are not trivial 
things, and poisons are real things. And if Harry is hated by DEs and 
LV, is it unreasonable to assume someone will try to poison him? Not 
at all! In fact, if he is so seemingly impervious to LV's magic, 
poison to me sounds like one solution (so would a bullet, but we're 
not going there right now).

Not only that, but Snape has seen the DEs. He has been one of them. 
He has been daring and bold in his betrayal of them, and understands 
he could very well pay the price himself. He knows the darkness that 
confronts his students.

So here is the lesson I am trying to impart: Snape is the best friend 
the Big Three have. Pampering them will not help them at all, making 
them tough, smart, skilled, and capable will. It's a tough world, and 
requires tough people.

A Barkeep in Diagon Alley




From porphyria at mindspring.com  Sat Feb 23 09:05:19 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 01:05:19 -0800
Subject: Toads, and other Snapethings
In-Reply-To: <a56qn2+iom7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <763A8A62-283C-11D6-95A2-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35626

Good Evening Folks. Just a quickie on the subject of Trevor, Snape and 
so forth.

Judy was contesting Cindy's rather uncharitable suggestion about Snape 
and the toad:

> And Cindy says that Snape was trying to destroy the Longbottoms when
> he made Trevor drink Neville's Shrinking Solution:
> > Snape would be perfectly willing to force Neville to brew the potion
> > that kills the last hope that Neville will have his parents back.

Judy continued:
> Creative, but I don't think it's true.? First of all, I think other
> kid *do* carry their pets around. Scabbers was often in Ron's pocket
> or backpack.?
> <snip excellent reasons for why Neville wouldn't be carrying around the 
> souls of his parents in toad form>
> And most importantly, I'm sure that my dearest Snape is a nice guy and
> would have given Trevor an antidote if Trevor had gotten sick.

Well put, Judy. Of course he would have, he's not *that* horrid. He's 
just a little horrid. ;-)

The thing that seems to get lost in the discussion about the Trevor 
incident is the extent to which Snape's object in this scene is largely 
Hermione, or to put it more accurately, Gryffindor entrapment. Snape is 
ridiculing Neville's potion, which presumably he does every class, and 
Hermione pipes up and begs him to let her help Neville fix it. Snape 
reacts with his usual hostility, but notice he doesn't threaten the toad 
until after Hermione offers her help. At this point Neville becomes even 
more desperate and *begs* her to help him. And how can she refuse him? 
She has to save his toad! Snape has effectively pinned her into a corner 
where she feels she has no choice but to defy his own warning, then he 
gets to deduct points from Gryffindor because he manipulated her into 
doing exactly what he wanted her to do. Compare this to the first 
Potions class in PS/SS where Snape deducts a point from Harry for *not* 
helping Neville with his potion. Snape's interest is in knocking points 
off the Gryffindors, not in poisoning defenseless animals. Furthermore, 
the Trevor scene should be read as yet another example of Snape's 
propensity toward theater; he's trying to frighten rather than harm. By 
the end of class, Neville's potion has already resumed it's appropriate 
color of green, so Snape no doubt surmises that Hermione has succeeded 
in getting it fixed. I think he would have been astonished if the potion 
hadn't worked properly.

Not that he probably isn't a little disgusted that Neville can't seem to 
do anything on his own.

This leads me to Brewpub's recent post which concludes:
> So here is the lesson I am trying to impart: Snape is the best friend
> the Big Three have. Pampering them will not help them at all, making
> them tough, smart, skilled, and capable will. It's a tough world, and
> requires tough people.

This is true; while IRL Snape would be a nightmare of a grade school 
teacher, in this context he's the perfect local adversary for a trio of 
would-be Voldemort-vanquishers.

I had more to say, but it's been a busy week and I don't have the energy 
or focus to post more tonight. So I'll use this space to declare my 
tentative support for George, and you can also sign me up for Eloise's 
Evil Fudge camp. I'll come over with an industrial sized case of 
marshmallows. I'll even bring the spits.

~~Porphyria


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




From siewleewong at time.net.my  Sat Feb 23 07:32:46 2002
From: siewleewong at time.net.my (Rhea Summers)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 15:32:46 +0800
Subject: Evil Fudge and Enviable Positions 
References: <1014414431.7898.97461.m6@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <003201c1bc3c$4c0b4070$d40718d3@Firebolt>

No: HPFGUIDX 35627

Eloise wrote:
> Eloise, delighted that Holly and Dicentra have joined the Evil Fudge camp.
> (Acronym, Tabouli?)
>

At first, I am convinced that Fudge is a simpering cow who is scared of
trouble and ultimately, LV's revenge if the Dark Lord ever rises again.
After reading the discussion about Fudge a few days ago, I'm now sure that
Fudge is Evil. I want to join the camp. =)

>    From: "jenny_ravenclaw" <meboriqua at aol.com>
> Subject: Re: The Character In The Most Enviable Position
<snip>
> Individually, though I don't really envy any of the characters except
> for... Hedwig.  She has the best deal.  She's beautiful, flies,
> belongs to Harry and is able to often get away with having quite the
> attitude.  She doesn't have to deal with Voldemort or Snape (or
> Hagrid) and she gets to travel all over the wizarding world.  She is
> also often rewarded for her work: with a shared breakfast or a petting
> from Harry.


Well, I don't envy any character from HP since everyone has some trouble of
their own to solve. For example, Harry is always being hunted down by LV.
Ron is always poor. Hermione is always worrying about grades. Snape, is
still the Angsty Potions Master. Hedwig... I pity her too. It scares me to
think about flying for distances without any external help. ^^;

_______________________________________________________
Rhea Summers

*Life's a Quidditch pitch. You get hit by bludgers when you least
expected,* - Draco Malfoy, Nox Noctis at
http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Rhea_Summers/









From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com  Sat Feb 23 08:23:21 2002
From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 08:23:21 -0000
Subject: Marauders learning to be animagi....
References: <a568oc+eb11@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002d01c1bc43$d79b6280$3e9abc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 35628


> > Gwen asked:
> > >1. Does the fact that Remus is a werewolf adversely effect or somehow
> > change his nature sufficiently to render Animagus transformation moot
> > (i.e., he'll become a wolf)?;
> > >2. To what extent does the wolf dictate his true animal form? Is it
> > possible that he could in fact transform at will into some other
> > animal, and if so, which animal? What would it reveal about his
> character?
> >
> > This really intrigues me. My initial, gut reaction says that, were
> he to have started his work towards becoming an animagus when he was a
> boy, he might well have been able to transform into something other than a
> wolf, something that better suited his nature.
> >

Looking at the animagus throughout the HP canon, it strikes me that the
actual creature an animagus turns into always seems to reflect something of
their character.

Dreadful Rita Skeeter becomes a creepy crawly beetle (GoF),  Pettigrew a
lowly rat and James Potter a noble stag (PoA).   So I  would think that
while the actual process of becoming an animal is
 proably a magical skill that could be learned, the magic takes the
personality traits of an animagus into account and governs to a large extent
what the person turns into.  As Remus is a werewolf, not an
 animagus as James, Sirius and Peter were (who did it to keep him
company...) I'm not sure how much of an animagus discussion can legitimately
be applied to him.

 Felicia Rickman






From nancyr at esatclear.ie  Sat Feb 23 18:09:25 2002
From: nancyr at esatclear.ie (RYANS)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:09:25 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: why would hagrid....
Message-ID: <002401c1bc95$5510d500$928291c2@nancyr>

No: HPFGUIDX 35629


   
   
  Lockhart may not be popular with the teachers but then again, neither is Snape, as far as I can see, he's not too kind to the other teachers (re: his treatment of Quirrel and Lupin). Or we could try my other theory: that Snape is part Vampire and Hagrid, because of his own past, is sticking up for him? It's possible that Fudge didn't know- he didn't seem to know about Hagrid being half giant or Snape being a death eater. What do you think? or about my OTHER, less likely theory: that Fudge is imperio'd by LV or on the dark side? Hence his unwillingness to admit to others that LV is regaining power, in case he is associated with it? Another thing- Hagrid is obviously on the side of Gryffindor against Slytherin, why would he be so defensive of Snape?(consider Snape's treatment of him).
   
Nancy
   


  >> I think perhaps isn't too keen on Snape himself, but
  > since Dumbledore trusts Severus, Hagrid says 'thats
  > good enough for me'.  Also, which teachers does
  > Hagrid NOT necessarily stick up for?

  >Lockhart?  Hagrid doesn't seem to think much of him.  But then,
  >none of the rest of the staff do, either.




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





From tabouli at unite.com.au  Sat Feb 23 11:16:12 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 22:16:12 +1100
Subject: Quaffling, Herm-eyeofevil-ne, Wizard justice, fickle Flo strikes again
Message-ID: <01f101c1bc5d$046b3600$d61dddcb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35630

Serenadust:
> Elkins, You've truly outdone yourself this time. I haven't had this much fun 
reading a series of posts since my first SHIPPING war.<

Hear hear.  I also thoroughly agree with her distinction between future fanfic and past fanspec.  See, I *told* you my Snape bio wasn't fanfic!

In fact, I'm so impressed, I'll present Elkins with a personalised acronym for her new theory:

C.U.P.I.D.'S.Q.U.A.F.F.L.E. (Cruelly Undermining Proud, Infatuated Damsel, Sirius Quickened Underage, Awkward Feminist Florence's Lapse into Evil)

Elkins (on my comparison of Sirius' "gloss" about the Lestranges with everyone's "gloss" of Lily):
> So does that mean that you really *are* on board with the whole 
Sirius-Has-Some-History-With-Mrs.-Lestrange thing then, Tabouli?<

(Tabouli, who has recently had an extended walk-in wardrobe built into her LOLLIPOPS cabin to accommodate all her new outfits, peeps out of a porthole)

I was, intones Captain Tabouli sternly, merely pointing out a similarity of logic, but now you mention it, perhaps the sharing of this glossy premise between the Bad Buoy CUPIDSQUAFFLE and the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS is worthy of a special friendship.  Maybe ships, like cities, could have twinning deals.  We could exchange students!  Have the captains shake hands in front of the municipal fountain for the cameras!  Unveil plaques for each other!  We must talk about this, Captain Elkins.  Here (says Captain Tabouli, discreetly hiding the parrot under her captain's hat and removing the knife from between her teeth), let me extend a plank... er, platform for discussion...

Elkins:
> Hermione Granger Is Ever So Evil?
Are you *mad,* woman?  I'd be *lynched!*
<pause>
All the same.  It is kind of...*tempting,* isn't it?<

(Captain Tabouli's hastily concealed single gold hoop earring twinkles evilly.  Was *all* of Hermione's fatigue in PoA *really* due to schoolwork?  What was she *really* up to with that Time Turner?  Is it really *her* choice to study sooo much, or is she being guided by a darker force?  Captain Tabouli shakes her head grimly, and adds a new entry to her agenda for discussion with Captain Elkins)


Debbie:
> Harry, on the other hand, who had a pitiful childhood and is haunted 
by the threat of LV, but has emerging spectacular magical ability, 
was in danger of turning into a superman superhero (the kiss of death 
in my popularity book), but admirably redeemed himself in GoF by 
acting on numerous occasions like a typical adolescent jerk.  (Three 
cheers for Harry the Date from Hell!)<

Ahaaaa. Excellent (Tabouli nips into the nearest telephone booth and emerges dressed all in yellow, her mouth making strange gulping motions.  For some reason, Nearly Headless Nick and Moaning Myrtle, who are drifting nearby, suddenly emit shrieks of terror and zip through the nearest wall).  Madam, may I present you with a PACMAN (Perfectly Angelic Characters Make Awful Novels) badge?

Elkins:
> I can't help but wonder if this really makes (Dementors who render
prisoners soulless and evil) the wisest choice
for guards of a prison to which criminals are sometimes incarcerated
for finite periods of time.  It seems rather self-defeating, don't
you think?<

Yeees, Wizard justice does seem to favour the stick over the carrot rather.  Perhaps it became stickier in response to the rise of Voldemort.  Indeed, it may even have parallelled his life story... the sinister, charming, handsome Tom Riddle was probably positively golden with carrots, so to speak, whereas Voldemort is definitely a stick.

Cindy:
> Trevor is no ordinary toad... When Evil Mrs. Lestrange and her gang 
> shoved their way into the Longbottom's home, Frank ...deposited 
> their souls into Trevor.

Do you realise, ladies and gentlemen of the list, that we have yet *another* woman without a given name rolling around in the canon?  Yes indeed, it's Mrs Longbottom!!  Could *she* have been the mysterious Florence?  After all, she could easily have been at school with Bertha Jorkins.  Perhaps *she* was smooching with *Mr* Lestrange behind the greenhouses, as he was stealthily laying the paving stones on her personal Road To Evil.  Mrs Lestrange never, ever forgot this.  While her husband was torturing Frank into madness, she tortured Mrs Florence Longbottom in a far more insidious way.  She let people assume Mrs Longbottom's madness was also the result of Crucio, but to this day only she, her husband and, unbeknownst to them, Spy Snape know the truth, which is that she *really* committed the far darker crime of transferring Mrs Longbottom's soul into a creature that bereft her not only of humanity, but of femininity...

...the body of a *male* toad.

(Though note that *Mr* Lestrange is *also* without a first name.  Another possibility is that Neville's toad is the Florence-snogging Trevor Lestrange, who deviously exchanged his soul with that of a toad's when he got wind of his arrest at the hands of vengeful Frank;  now spying on Harry and the other Gryffindor Enemies of Slytherin in the innocent guise of a household pet...)

Elkins:
> This is because as far as I can tell, I 
may well be young Barty's *only* true fan on this entire list.
I am therefore thrilled to support anything that might make him more 
sympathetic to other readers.<

(Tabouli hurries back to her cabin wardrobe, rips off her unflattering Pacman costume, and dons her BABEMEISTER T-shirt {Brilliant Actor Barty: Evil Man Easily, Infinitely Sexier Than Ex-Riddle}).  I don't know what qualifies one for True Fandom, but I've always avowed that Barty's performance as Moody would have had *me* hanging around backstage with an autograph book.  Fooling Dumbledore and all of Hogwarts for an entire year?  Now *there's* a villain with style.  OK, so he made a fatal error in his last hour, but we all have our off days.  Hey, if I developed a sudden Bad Boy hankering, Barty Junior would be the Death Eater for me!

saintbacchus:
> Petunia - Anger and resentment

Ahaaa!  It's a clue!  Maybe until Lily snared James, Petunia festered in silence, half-resentful, half-admiring of her sister's powers.  In fact, it was *Petunia*, Lily's slim, blonde Muggle sister, that James originally dated, after she turned up with her parents to watch a Hogwarts Quidditch match.  They exchanged passionate owls all through term, and met in Hogsmeade on weekends.  It wasn't until James' eye roved onto one of his "own kind", her red-haired little sister, that Petunia developed the blistering hatred and jealousy we see today.  In a final gesture of devastated defiance, she sent the happy couple a bouquet of petunias and then vowed to hate Wizardry and all the Potters' heirs and successors for the rest of her life...

Tabouli.


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




From filo_roll at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 23 11:35:00 2002
From: filo_roll at yahoo.com (filo_roll)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 11:35:00 -0000
Subject: Foe Glass
Message-ID: <a57up4+cmvp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35631

Hello everyone,

I have a thing about the Foe Glass in Moody/Couch's office.  
There was some suggestion that Snape is not a vampire because he 
could see himself in the Foe Glass.  The thing is, the Foe Glass is 
not a mirror.  Harry says it looks like a mirror, but in my opinion, 
it is not a mirror.  The word Foe means enemy, antagonist, rival etc, 
which gave me the idea that the "mirror" actually shows your enemies, 
and not your own reflection when you stand in front of it.  The 
reason Snape sees his own glaring face in the "mirror" is because he, 
McGonagall, and Dumbledore were coming to get Moody/Couch and so they 
were his enemies, thus their images appeared on the Glass.  The face 
Snape sees is NOT a reflection, rather it is a image left over from 
when the Foe Glass was warning Moody/Couch.  Therefore, there is 
still a slight possibility that Snape could be a vampire.

filo-roll





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Feb 23 15:05:01 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 15:05:01 -0000
Subject: A Different Look at Snape
In-Reply-To: <a576fp+h363@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a58b2t+m9gv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35632


The Barkeep wrote:
	A post explaining Snape's why Snape's hateful behavior  may 
have a positive side.

Oh, yeah. My kid had a Snape-clone (in behavior not 
appearance) for sixth grade. Understand, I do not like this 
woman. I still grit my teeth when I think of her.  She hurt my kid 
and I'm not happy about it. But...

Michael had always been a little slow in math. All his teachers up 
till this one had been willing to modify his assignments. She 
absolutely refused to give him extra time in math. She humiliated 
him in countless ways. He was in tears every night for a week. 
Still, he didn't want to switch teachers, even though I told him that 
it would be okay to do that. He wanted to show he was tough.

She told him he needed to work harder. So I went to her and 
said, "Is there any other reason that he could be having this 
trouble besides not working hard enough." And she said, "He 
could have a learning disability." Well that had always been in 
the back of my mind, but I kept telling myself his problems 
weren't *that* bad. But she made me so mad I had him tested. 
And you know what....he does have a learning disability. And 
because he got the help he needed, he now keeps up with his 
class in math and doesn't need to have his assignments 
modified any more. 

It's often struck me that Neville could have the magical equivalent 
of a learning disability. 	Could it be that Snape's treatment of 
Neville will finally make someone mad enough to find out why 
he's having the problems he is? 

Pippin




From Edblanning at aol.com  Sat Feb 23 15:14:31 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:14:31 EST
Subject: Diana's views on  Snape/George....I'm not an expert...
Message-ID: <7f.21e2bc6b.29a90bd7@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35633

In a message dated 23/02/02 04:11:02 GMT Standard Time, rusalka at ix.netcom.com 
writes:


> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., mlfrasher at a... wrote:
> > >  ...his disillusionment with the DEs was not a sudden 
> > epiphanous revelation, but rather, a gradual realization that
> > Voldemort and his followers were evil: their motives selfish, 
> their 
> > means unjustified, their ends corrupt, and their assumptions just 
> > plain *wrong.*  
> > 
> > I have a problem with theories that depict moral quandaries of 
> right or 
> > wrong.  If there's anything that Snape has given us in the books --
> it's a 
> > nice grey area.  
> 
> The existence of gray does not preclude the existence of black and 
> white.  In fact, you can't have gray at all unless you've got black 
> and white first.  In any case, regardless of my own view on the 
> matter, I don't think JKR is trying to present a morally 
> relativistic universe in the books; I think real evil exists in the 
> 

This concerns one of the problems I have, or at least did have, with the 
Potterverse and is one of the reasons why G.E.O.R.G.E.'S. S.I.S.T.E.R. 
D.I.A.N.A.*, whilst in most respects agreeing totally with her brother, has 
slightly divergent views.

* for those who've missed it, D.I.A.N.A. is my acronym for my Snapetheory , 
originally published as the Steady State theory and very closely related to 
George.

It used to seem to me that we were at the same time being presented with both 
a relativistic and a dualistic, Good vs Evil universe. 
We had the Evil Voldemort, with the implication that his followers are the 
forces of Darkness, lined up against Dumbledore and what we may call the 
'Light' side. In fact, because we are talking about a conflict, it's very 
hard to conceptualise it in any but a dualistic, Good vs Evil manner.
But then, we had the 'greyness' of many, if not all, of our Good characters - 
all the ones about whom we have any significant degree of knowledge, at any 
rate, leading to a battle not so much between black and white, but between 
black and grey.
This has led some of our number to try to argue for the 'greying' of our 
perception of the black characters, which in some cases is quite hard to do 
(I think one of the problems is that we tend to know less about them).
However, Diana's take on this is that the difference between the two sides is 
not just that that one side is 'Good' and one side is 'Evil', but that (more 
significantly when we come down to considering the case of this one 
individual) only one side (the 'Light' side) recognises that there is a 
distincion to be made in the first place. It's all a question of viewpoint.

I take as my text....PS/SS, Ch 17 (p211, UK version). Quirrel says,

       'A foolish young man I was then, full of ridiculous ideas about good 
and evil.   
        Lord Voldemort showed me how wrong I was. There is no good and evil, 
there 
       is only power, and those too weak to seek it...'

This then  the view Voldemort inculcates in his followers. 
So we have different perceptions according to our viewpoint. Yes, from the 
'Light' viewpoint, evil exists, but from the 'Dark' viewpoint, it doesn't.

Now since our protagonists are on the 'Light' side, the implication is that, 
as you say, Evil really exists in the Potterverse and Voldemort, who may or 
may not personally subscribe to the doctrine he taught Quirrel, is its 
embodiment.
 
> > Him suddenly having an epiphany, like some ray of sunshine 
> > that hits him from the sky and all the sudden enlightens him, 
> seems all hokey 
> > to me.  
> > I agree to the gradual realization that this isn't the way to 
> live, 
> > again through some personal threat to survival, and then realizing 
> that 
> > living this way is an isolated and horrible life.  
> 
> I'm all for lack of epiphanies (George nods enthusiastically from 
> the sidelines), but the idea that Snape's defection from the DEs was 
> based on the purely pragmatic realization that there's nothing in it 
> for him doesn't work for me.  I don't think it would've served to 
> win Dumbledore's trust and regard -- I think Dumbledore would've had 
> to see evidence of sincere moral repentance on Snape's part before 
> he cut any deals.  Plus, on purely aesthetic grounds, I just find it 
> less interesting to reduce Snape's motives to mere survivalism; it 
> removes much of that "principle vs inclination" tension that makes 
> the character so fascinating for me.
> 
> Marina
> 
Yes, yes, yes! Diana couldn't agree more. She likes her Snape all 
angst-ridden and tortured.
But the tension she finds in him around the time of his defection is the 
tension between the two world-views represented by the Dark and Light sides. 
Not 'Shall I ally myself with the forces of Good or the forces of Evil?', but 
the dawning realisation that there *was* after all a question to be asked in 
the first place. Mere physical survivalism doesn't come into it at all. The 
maintainance of sanity and integrity however does.

Eloise



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




From porphyria at mindspring.com  Sat Feb 23 18:52:29 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 10:52:29 -0800
Subject: Snape and the faculty, foe glass, Vampire fluff 
In-Reply-To: <002401c1bc95$5510d500$928291c2@nancyr>
Message-ID: <7CCF40DC-288E-11D6-95A2-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35634

Nancy wrote:
> ? Lockhart may not be popular with the teachers but then again, neither 
> is Snape, as far as I can see, he's not too kind to the other teachers 
> (re: his treatment of Quirrel and Lupin).

What evidence is there that Snape isn't popular amongst the other 
teachers? Snape has very specific reasons for hating Quirrell and Lupin 
(and Lockhart); I don't think we can assume this implies some type of 
overall hostility between Snape and the rest of the faculty in general. 
Profs Sprout, Flitwick and McGonagall all seemed to thoroughly 
appreciate Snape's menacing of Lockhart at the end of CoS; the faculty 
apart from Lockhart was functioning as a unit here. Snape and McGonagall 
have a pointed rivalry over their respective Quidditch teams, but this 
too can be interpreted as a sign of affection between them. I've always 
imagined these two respect each other well enough; they certainly never 
speak ill of each other, and as Dumbledore's left and right hand people, 
they are partners. I suspect that the other faculty members normally 
afford Snape the respect his position deserves as a matter of 
professionalism (if they didn't, we'd probably hear about it). I think 
this accounts for the very least of the reasons that Hagrid sticks up 
for Snape. Also, is Snape ever disrespectful to Hagrid? You imply that 
he is, but I don't remember it.

> Or we could try my other theory: that Snape is part Vampire and Hagrid, 
> because of his own past, is sticking up for him?

I suspect that if Hagrid is keeping one of Snape's secrets, it's 
probably the one we already know about by GoF, that he was a DE, and a 
spy -- that and it's ramifications, which we don't entirely know yet. In 
PS/SS, Hagrid, in defending Snape, glosses over responding to Harry's 
accusation that Snape hates him. This implies that Hagrid probably does 
know a lot about Snape that he isn't telling,  but that it's something 
of a different nature than vampirism, something having more to do with 
Harry or his parents directly, and probably how that ties in with 
Snape's position in the DEs or his experience as a spy.

I admit that JKR likes the social prejudice theme, and uses it again and 
again. We know that house elves are people too, werewolves are people 
too and half-giants are people too. But Snape already has a problem 
along these lines. Although it's a little confusing as to who exactly 
knows that Snape had really been a DE (like those 200 wizards in the 
Pensieve seem to know), I think  we can assume that it's not common 
knowledge. Snape is pretty edgy all through GoF about not letting either 
Karkaroff or "Moody" say anything that will reveal this fact to random 
onlookers. Plus I think we can take Sirius at his word when he says he's 
never heard anything about Snape being a DE (Sirius has evidently 
researched this topic during his vacation) and that he thinks it would 
be inconceivable that Dumbledore would hire an ex-DE as a professor. My 
reading of this was that Sirius's incredulity at this idea probably 
reflects what the average parent would think; wouldn't Dumbledore be 
bombarded with owls about Snape if every parent knew that he used to be 
a DE?

My point here is that I'd find it rather redundant and heavy-handed 
writing if Snape turns out to be a vampire. He already has enough 
problems with his dark past and with people being prejudiced against him 
for it (like both the fake and real Moodys). I'd find it artistically 
unbalanced if vampirism was heaped on top of what already looks to be a 
teetering pile of issues. And furthermore he's one of the most *human* 
characters that JKR has developed; I'd hate to think that his nastiness 
could somehow be "explained" by vampirism. That's too much of a 
simplification; he's nasty because he's human.

Plus I really don't get the point of why a character would turn out to 
be a vampire when they don't exhibit *any* of the stereotypical symptoms 
of it. Snape bleeds -- profusely, he eats in public, goes out in 
daylight, bursts through doorways uninvited; it is implied that he 
sleeps, has no fear of garlic and there is no evidence that Hogwarts 
students occasionally find themselves suffering from unexplained anemia 
and puncture wounds to the neck. I agree that we don't seem to know 
exactly how JKR construes vampirism, but if she even wants to deal with 
it at all then she must ascribe to it some symptoms which distinguish it 
from normal wizardy. If Snape is a vampire, or part-vampire, or 
'treated' vampire, then it *virtually doesn't matter* -- even the 
'treated' Lupin still got sick every month, had a morbid fear of the 
moon, and still transformed accidentally. There's no evidence that Snape 
has even residual vampire problems. I guess I'm saying I don't see how 
this would fit in thematically; if the point is to give Snape more angst 
and vulnerablity towards prejudice, I'd say he already has enough to 
hold him in his human interactions.

I wanted to mention the foe-glass. Filo-roll has just pointed out:
> I have a thing about the Foe Glass in Moody/Couch's office.?
> There was some suggestion that Snape is not a vampire because he
> could see himself in the Foe Glass.? The thing is, the Foe Glass is
> not a mirror.

Exactly, the foe glass is *neither here nor there* in terms of vampire 
evidence. Since some other people were wondering why Snape seems to be 
so taken with his reflection here, as if he'd never seen it before, I 
wanted to offer an alternative interpretation for his reaction to it.

Snape has been having more that a few identity crisis problems 
throughout GoF, in the essentialism vs. existentialism category. He has, 
for the last 15 years or so, _acted_ in the service of good, he's _done 
good things_ (risked his life to spy, protected Harry over and over, 
remained loyal to Dumbledore). So this means that he's Good because he 
acts that way. But then this damn scar, this insignia which brands him 
as being essentially Evil reappears, and even though he knows better it 
bothers him. A lot. He's stained, as the fake!Moody implies, and he 
shudders convulsively at the mere thought. Plus "Moody" himself accuses 
Snape of being untrustworthy, that is, of being a 'foe' of Dumbledore's. 
So with his past catching up with him at every step (when Moody isn't 
dogging his heels Karkaroff is), Snape has a lot of identity issues to 
be anxious about.

So when Snape finally walks into "Moody's" office and looks to this 
mirror and sees, metaphorically, a reflection of his own 'self,' it 
probably took him several seconds to ponder the immense irony of the 
situation. The mirror reveals him to be a 'foe' of "Moody" not because 
he's Evil, but precisely because he's Good. "Moody" is really the one 
whom Dumbledore is mistaken to trust, not Snape. He probably found it 
therapeutic to let this all sink in. It's actually a very touching 
scene. And I'll be ripped if it has anything to do with vampires. ;-)

Sorry if I'm prickly about the vampire thing; it's sort of a pet peeve 
and also it's early in the morning, for me, in this time zone.

~~Porphyria, who could use some coffee.



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




From rollerramla at hotmail.com  Sat Feb 23 13:11:41 2002
From: rollerramla at hotmail.com (rollerramla)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 13:11:41 -0000
Subject: 11-year-old Math Class
Message-ID: <a584ed+3gko@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35635

This is a question I've had for a very long time; in fact, from the 
moment I started the books I wondered this. If the students enter 
Hogwarts when they are 11 years old, then does that mean that they
stop 
learning math at a 5th grade (or the British equivalent) level? If
so, 
it seems that the students graduate having only learned simple 
arithmetic! Any theories? I'd love to hear them. :)






From mercia at ireland.com  Sat Feb 23 16:52:48 2002
From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 16:52:48 -0000
Subject: A Different Look at Snape
In-Reply-To: <a576fp+h363@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a58hd0+a3ik@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35636

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "brewpub44" <brewpub44 at e...> wrote:
> > > 
> > 
> So here is the lesson I am trying to impart: Snape is the best 
friend 
> the Big Three have. Pampering them will not help them at all, 
making 
> them tough, smart, skilled, and capable will. It's a tough world, 
and 
> requires tough people.

Good take I think. I also seem to recall a comment in an interview 
from JKR which said something like Dumbledore believes everyone 
needs to experience teachers like Snape for thier own good. That 
would seem to support your take.

meglet2
> 
> 





From graceofmyheart at hotmail.com  Sat Feb 23 17:55:06 2002
From: graceofmyheart at hotmail.com (flower_fairy12)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 17:55:06 -0000
Subject: Flower girls (Was "Names for proper Death Eater ladies")
In-Reply-To: <a571vr+104vi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a58l1q+qal2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35637

> Does it strike anyone else that there is a lot of floral
> imagery with the girls' names? We start out with Petunia
> and Lily (who were surely cursed from the outset, having
> been given names like that). Then Pansy, Narcissa,
> Lavender, and Myrtle show up. None of these characters
> are likeable, except Lily and maybe Lavender. Kind of
> interesting, ne?


BTW, did anyone know that there is also a flower called Sirius? 
I found it here  
http://www.clareflorist.co.uk/prodpage.asp?ProductID=118

Rosie

http://magic-hogwarts.com





From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Sat Feb 23 18:44:16 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 18:44:16 -0000
Subject: Snape and the foe glass; Math classes at Hogwarts
In-Reply-To: <7CCF40DC-288E-11D6-95A2-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a58nu0+11hi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35638

First, thank you, Porphyria for your excellant reasons why Snape is 
mostly likely not a vampie.   
Now, specifically on the topic of Snape's reflection, Porphyria said:
> the foe glass is *neither here nor there* in terms of vampire 
> evidence. Since some other people were wondering why Snape seems to 
> be so taken with his reflection here, as if he'd never seen it 
> before, I wanted to offer an alternative interpretation for his 
> reaction to it.
[Porphyria then points out that the reflection in the foe glass 
validated Snape's identity as a trusted associate of Dumbledore:}
> The mirror reveals [Snape] to be a 'foe' of "Moody" not 
> because [Snape is] Evil, but precisely because he's Good. 

Porphyria, thank you!  I am so relieved.  I really didn't like the 
other explanation, which is that Snape is a vampire, has never seen 
his own reflection before, and is standing there transfixed at the 
sight of himself, thinking "Egads!!  I really *do* need to wash my 
hair!"


Rollerramla asked:
> If the students enter Hogwarts when they are 11 years old,
> then does that mean that they stop learning math at a 5th grade (or 
> the British equivalent) level?

There has been a lot of speculation here about this.  One theory is 
that the students learn some math during their regular classes 
(trigonometry during astronomy, fractions during potions, etc.)  
Another is that most wizards don't need much math.  There have been 
lots of discussions about whether other subjects are taught at 
Hogwarts.  Music instruction especially seems to be strangely absent. 
Does anyone remember the message numbers or dates of any of these 
threads?

Judy





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Feb 23 18:52:31 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 18:52:31 -0000
Subject: Snape and the faculty, foe glass, Vampire fluff
In-Reply-To: <7CCF40DC-288E-11D6-95A2-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a58odf+nm8j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35639

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Porphyria <porphyria at m...> wrote:

<snip of Snape's relationship to the faculty which I agree with 
100%) and that the secret Hagrid is keeping from Harry has 
nothing to do with vampires, with which I agree about 95%.>

I think Hagrid knows what Snape is, and tends to sympathize 
with him, but I think as a card-carrying L.O.V.E.S.L.A.V.E. (League 
Of Violently Enamoured Snape Lily And Vampire Enthusiasts, 
that the secret has something to do with Lily.

> 
> My point here is that I'd find it rather redundant and 
heavy-handed 
> writing if Snape turns out to be a vampire. He already has 
enough 
> problems with his dark past and with people being prejudiced 
against him 
> for it (like both the fake and real Moodys). I'd find it artistically 
> unbalanced if vampirism was heaped on top of what already 
looks to be a 
> teetering pile of issues. And furthermore he's one of the most 
*human* 
> characters that JKR has developed; I'd hate to think that his 
nastiness 
> could somehow be "explained" by vampirism. That's too much 
of a 
> simplification; he's nasty because he's human.

Which is why I like the part-Vampire theory. I thoroughly believe 
that it's Snape's *human* side that is nasty. Vampires as I 
imagine them are cooly dispassionate about everything except 
their next meal. I think that's one reason Rowling is hiding his 
vampire nature...she wants us to understand how very human 
Snape is. I agree that it's heaping an awful lot of baggage on 
Snape to make him a vampire and an ex-Death Eater, but 
Rowling wasn't afraid to put two monsters in the Castle, so why 
should she be afraid to give Snape more than one issue? There 
are plenty of RL people who have to cope with being say, black 
and disabled, or Jewish and gay, or whatever.

> 
> Plus I really don't get the point of why a character would turn out 
to 
> be a vampire when they don't exhibit *any* of the stereotypical 
symptoms 
> of it. Snape bleeds -- profusely, he eats in public, goes out in 
> daylight, bursts through doorways uninvited; it is implied that 
he 
> sleeps, has no fear of garlic and there is no evidence that 
Hogwarts 
> students occasionally find themselves suffering from 
unexplained anemia 
> and puncture wounds to the neck. 

Well, Snape's unhealthy appearance could be due to an 
absence of haemoglobin in the diet. He goes out in daylight 
once in a while but so did Bram Stoker's Dracula. We don't know 
that Snape has no fear of garlic, since it's unclear whether the 
turban smells of garlic or not.

 As for the doorways: Snape is a Hogwarts Professor, "Master of 
this School": why shouldn't he go where he likes, since the 
Master of the House, Dumbledore, has given him leave?
The Shack is either Dumbledore's or no ones' and Snape enters 
on Hogwarts business.

 He does need permission to enter Lupin's 
private office, however. When he enters Moody's office (the same 
one) in GoF, he is explicity behind Dumbledore. When he bangs 
into Pomfrey's territory in PoA, it can only be after Dumbledore 
has undone the spell on the door first and the text says he, 
Dumbledore and Fudge enter together. The other time he comes 
in, it's with Fudge, who would also have leave to control who 
enters and leaves. In fact this point is made specifically in the 
text by having Fudge refuse to sign Harry's Hogwarts form. In fact 
Fudge can not only enter the school, he can bring a Dementor 
with him! Surely he can bring a vampire, if he wishes.

I agree that pale, thin, interesting, angry/depressed characters 
who swoop around in black are a cliche, but that is true even if 
they aren't vampires, so I can't see that being a vampire makes it 
worse.

I agree that we don't seem to know 
> exactly how JKR construes vampirism, but if she even wants to 
deal with 
> it at all then she must ascribe to it some symptoms which 
distinguish it 
> from normal wizardy. If Snape is a vampire, or part-vampire, or 
> 'treated' vampire, then it *virtually doesn't matter* -- even the 
> 'treated' Lupin still got sick every month, had a morbid fear of 
the 
> moon, and still transformed accidentally. There's no evidence 
that Snape 
> has even residual vampire problems. I guess I'm saying I don't 
see how 
> this would fit in thematically; if the point is to give Snape more 
angst 
> and vulnerablity towards prejudice, I'd say he already has 
enough to 
> hold him in his human interactions.

Not neccessarily.  Rowling could be making the point that  
Snape has assimilated and could live as a normal wizard, could 
fit in, except that he wouldn't be welcome in normal society just 
because he is a vampire, a member of a despised race. That's 
different than being an ex-Death Eater, which was a choice, or an 
uncontrollably violent werewolf, or a magically handicapped 
Muggle,  or a culturally ignorant Muggleborn. Vampires come 
from a magical culture, yet the wizards hate them.

There is a  passage in Mein Kampf where Hitler explicitly likens 
the Jew to the vampire, in that it preys on those who give it 
hospitality. 

Pippin
who thinks Snape should have an extra House Elf to carry his 
emotional baggage




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Sat Feb 23 19:20:18 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 19:20:18 -0000
Subject: Snape and the foe glass; Math classes at Hogwarts
In-Reply-To: <a58nu0+11hi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a58q1i+s5rk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35640

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" <judyshapiro at e...> wrote:
> There has been a lot of speculation here about this.  One theory 
is 
> that the students learn some math during their regular classes 
> (trigonometry during astronomy, fractions during potions, etc.)  
> Another is that most wizards don't need much math.  There have 
been 
> lots of discussions about whether other subjects are taught at 
> Hogwarts.  Music instruction especially seems to be strangely 
absent. 

This seems to go hand in hand with a sad lack of extracurricular 
activities at Hogwarts.  I mean, there's Quidditch, and there's... 
uhm... Quidditch.  Okay, there was a Duelling Club in CoS, but that 
doesn't seem to have lasted.  Where are the other sports?  The 
band?  The school newspaper?  Where are the theater geeks, the Chess 
Club, the arts & crafts enthusiasts? Does the library even have a 
fiction section? I'm beginning to think most wizards live really 
shallow lives.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com






From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Sat Feb 23 19:34:15 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 19:34:15 -0000
Subject: FILK: Dark Lord's Rising
Message-ID: <a58qrn+ane1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35641

Dark Lord's Rising
to the tune of "Bad Moon Rising"
http://ynucc.yeungnam.ac.kr/~bwlee/ccrmidi.htm
Scene: Karkaroff is packing his suitcase, preparing to disappear.

KARKAROFF:
I flee the Dark Lord's Rising,
You-know-who is on the way,
Vengeance looms on the horizon,
So I'm blowing town today.

I'm hauling ass tonight
To save my pathetic life,
There's a Dark Lord on the rise.

I've been publicly disloyal,
Cutting deals and naming names.
Now my game's about to spoil,
It's all going down in flames.

I'm hauling ass tonight,
To save my pathetic life,
There's a Dark Lord on the rise.

The Dark Mark binds us all together.
Now it's back and it's no trick.
Soon he'll summon us to gather.
I'm all set to crap a brick.

I'm hauling ass tonight,
To save my pathetic life,
There's a Dark Lord on the rise.

I'm hauling ass tonight,
To save my pathetic live,
There's a Dark Lord on the rise.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From mercia at ireland.com  Sat Feb 23 18:49:47 2002
From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 18:49:47 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore has Edge
Message-ID: <a58o8b+meh6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35642

A sideways step perhaps from the discussions a while back about 
Lupin's 'Edge'. I would like to suggest Dubledore also possesses 
something of this elusive quality. 

Perhaps I should here try to define what I understand by 'Edge' as 
applied to Lupin at least, since it may or may not match what others 
mean by it. I see it as something to do with the potential for 
menace or danger in a personality. Someone (sorry can't quite 
remember who) spoke of it as the feeling that Lupin could be mean to 
you but wouldn't. You know he won't harm you and can trust him 
absolutely (in human form of course) but the sense of his potential 
to be dangerous is there and seriously attractive. Again for me this 
is entirely to do with his human personality and nothing whatsoever 
to do with the unfortunate fact that he turns into a ravening wild 
beast at every full moon. It is his human side that can also be 
dangerous and that for me is the source of the 'lazy' comments that 
people have seen as evidence of a dark side to him (if that makes 
sense to you). However this quality is very different from the 
threat of violence from a real abuser. That is what makes it Edge 
and not terror or threat. From Lupin and the other Good Guys this 
Edge, for me, comes from their ability and willingness to use 
violence or power if need be but only reluctantly, in the service of 
Good and for motives that have some degree of justification. It is 
not violence for violence's sake as it is with Voldemort and the 
DEs. This sense of Edge from Lupin is why I am still convinced that 
he was on that train as a protecter for Harry and why I think 
Lupin's backstory would involve years of dangerous living on his 
wits, if not actually spying like Snape, at least being some kind of 
operator against the Dark. No canon evidence of course. Just my 
feeling.

Anyway to go back to Dumbledore, we know that he is a powerful 
Wizard and from book 1 learn that he has already played a major part 
in the last great war defeating the dark wizard Grindlewald etc. 
Quite apart from the hints about his role in relation to the 
conflict with Voldemort. Harry gets a glimpse of this power in the 
unveiling of Crouch Jr. scene in GoF. However there are also little 
moments in the earlier books that for me bring him into the category 
of someone with Edge. In particular his comment to Snape in PoA when 
Snape furiously asks if Dumbledore has forgotten that Sirius showed 
himself capable of murder at the age of 16. That 'My memory is as 
good as ever it was Severus.' struck me at the time as a very 
pleasantly spoken but very definite threat. It shuts Severus up as 
effectively as a blow. We know now something of what is behind it. 
In effect Dumbledore was saying 'And I remember all you showed 
yourself capable of - I remember your death eating days even if I 
also remember all you have done to redeem yourself since.' That is 
surely Edge.

Mercia   





From degroote at altavista.com  Sat Feb 23 20:51:00 2002
From: degroote at altavista.com (Vicky DeGroote)
Date: 23 Feb 2002 12:51:00 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius Spy, Voldemort's Pursuit of Potters,
    Hogwart's Departments...
Message-ID: <20020223205100.21211.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35643

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020223/11f5e9d6/attachment.ksh>

From plumeski at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 23 19:52:35 2002
From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 19:52:35 -0000
Subject: 11-year-old Math Class
In-Reply-To: <a584ed+3gko@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a58ru3+7spj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35644

"rollerramla" <rollerramla at h...> wrote:
> This is a question I've had for a very long time; in fact, from the 
> moment I started the books I wondered this. If the students enter 
> Hogwarts when they are 11 years old, then does that mean that they
> stop 
> learning math at a 5th grade (or the British equivalent) level? If
> so, 
> it seems that the students graduate having only learned simple 
> arithmetic! Any theories? I'd love to hear them. :)

I have no problem with the fact that everything would indicate that 
your theory is spot on. 

Magical people can count their Galleons, Sickles and Knuts (heck, 
even Hagrid, who's hardly the brightest of the bunch, has no 
difficulty with that), they can weigh their ingredients for potions 
and herbology...

For what would they need algebra, calculus, geometry, etc? As for 
anecdotal evidence, it's quite obvious that the Weasleys have no 
command of these concepts, judging by the appearance of their 
house... ;-)

Part of the concept of magical education is that all the academic 
disciplines we Muggles take for granted are of absolutely no value or 
interest to the magical community, and long may that remain the 
case. :-)

Incidentally, I suspect that JKR's invention of wizarding education 
at 11 is quite deliberate: in the UK education system, that is the 
stage by which one is deemed to have assimilated the basics of each 
subject, and when one goes to "big school" (to quote my nephew).

-- 
GulPlum, who would like to establish that he *liked* maths at school 
and was considered the star pupil of his class in the subject for a 
few years, so his views are not based on anti-maths sentiment...







From margdean at erols.com  Sat Feb 23 22:34:30 2002
From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 17:34:30 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Flower girls (Was "Names for proper Death Eater 
 ladies")
References: <a58l1q+qal2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C7818F6.3FFCF986@erols.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35645

flower_fairy12 wrote:

> BTW, did anyone know that there is also a flower called Sirius?
> I found it here
> http://www.clareflorist.co.uk/prodpage.asp?ProductID=118

I think that's the name of the arrangement rather than the
flowers (which judging from the caption are called "longi
lilies").


--Margaret Dean
  <margdean at erols.com>



From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Sat Feb 23 22:06:29 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 22:06:29 -0000
Subject: 11-year-old Math Class
In-Reply-To: <a58ru3+7spj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a593p5+pqjg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35646

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "GulPlum" <plumeski at y...> wrote:
> Magical people can count their Galleons, Sickles and Knuts (heck, 
> even Hagrid, who's hardly the brightest of the bunch, has no 
> difficulty with that), they can weigh their ingredients for 
potions 
> and herbology...
> 
> For what would they need algebra, calculus, geometry, etc? As for 
> anecdotal evidence, it's quite obvious that the Weasleys have no 
> command of these concepts, judging by the appearance of their 
> house... ;-)

Perhaps that explains why Gringott's is run by goblins.  They're the 
only ones who know enough math to actually run a financial 
institution.

Hopefully, the Goblins will never decide to take up embezzling...

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 23 22:18:37 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 22:18:37 -0000
Subject: Snape and the  foe glass
In-Reply-To: <7CCF40DC-288E-11D6-95A2-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a594ft+l7jg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35647

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Porphyria <porphyria at m...> wrote:
>Some other people were wondering why Snape seems to be 
> so taken with his reflection here, as if he'd never seen it before, 
I 
> wanted to offer an alternative interpretation for his reaction to 
it.
> 
> Snape has been having more that a few identity crisis problems 
> throughout GoF, in the essentialism vs. existentialism category. He 
has, 
> for the last 15 years or so, _acted_ in the service of good, he's 
_done 
> good things_ (risked his life to spy, protected Harry over and 
over, 
> remained loyal to Dumbledore). So this means that he's Good because 
he 
> acts that way. But then this damn scar, this insignia which brands 
him 
> as being essentially Evil reappears, and even though he knows 
better it 
> bothers him. A lot. He's stained, as the fake!Moody implies, and he 
> shudders convulsively at the mere thought. Plus "Moody" himself 
accuses 
> Snape of being untrustworthy, that is, of being a 'foe' of 
>Dumbledore's. So with his past catching up with him at every step 
(when Moody isn't dogging his heels Karkaroff is), Snape has a lot of 
>identity issues to be anxious about.
> 
> So when Snape finally walks into "Moody's" office and looks to this 
> mirror and sees, metaphorically, a reflection of his own 'self,' it 
> probably took him several seconds to ponder the immense irony of 
>the situation. The mirror reveals him to be a 'foe' of "Moody" not 
>because he's Evil, but precisely because he's Good. "Moody" is 
>really the one whom Dumbledore is mistaken to trust, not Snape. He 
>probably found it therapeutic to let this all sink in. It's actually 
>a very touching scene. And I'll be ripped if it has anything to do 
>with vampires. 

Thank you!  Thank you, Porphyria!  I don't believe Snape is a vampire 
(for many reasons) and I'd be disappointed if he turned out to be 
one.  Being a former DE is enough of a deep dark secret for any one 
person to carry.  But the stupid foe glass was bothering me because I 
couldn't explain Snape's reaction to it.  Your expalnation works 
perfectly, and it does indeed make the scene "touching."  Snape has 
been in hell this year, and this moment would indeed be very 
therapeutic.

Now, if someone could please tell me why Severus has such poor 
grooming habits.  I'd love to buy him a big bottle of shampoo and 
make him an appointment for teeth cleaning with Hermione's parents.  
Maybe I'd even make him something chocolate to cheer him up. ;)




From msn.tsf at hccnet.nl  Sat Feb 23 21:38:05 2002
From: msn.tsf at hccnet.nl (Yoris)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 22:38:05 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and the faculty, foe glass, Vampire fluff
References: <7CCF40DC-288E-11D6-95A2-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <004501c1bcb2$6108ece0$9600000a@NEWPC>

No: HPFGUIDX 35648

"----- Original Message -----
From: "Porphyria" <porphyria at mindspring.com>

<snip a very good snape review>

~~Porphyria, who could use some coffee."

This is the best snape review i ever read!!! Everything about it is perfect,
please let her write the snape FAQ!!! Sorry if my message is too short but I
can only say I agree on all points...

Yoris





From heidit at netbox.com  Sat Feb 23 22:34:04 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 17:34:04 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] 11-year-old Math Class
In-Reply-To: 16d3
Message-ID: <16600678.907366530@imcingular.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35649

It's possible, if not likely, that they do some algebra and trig in Divination - likely Geometry too- and in potions, they're regularly refreshing basic maths, including percentages and fractions. Further, there's been debate here in the past as to whether Arithmancy may include maths as well.

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: "rollerramla" <rollerramla at hotmail.com>
Subject: [HPforGrownups] 11-year-old Math Class
Real-To:  "rollerramla" <rollerramla at hotmail.com>

This is a question I've had for a very long time; in fact, from the
moment I started the books I wondered this. If the students enter
Hogwarts when they are 11 years old, then does that mean that they
stop
learning math at a 5th grade (or the British equivalent) level? If
so,
it seems that the students graduate having only learned simple
arithmetic! Any theories? I'd love to hear them. :)





________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin Files!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/

Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!

Is your message...
An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements.
Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups.
None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com

Unsubscribing? Email hpforgrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
____________________________________________________________

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





From msn.tsf at hccnet.nl  Sat Feb 23 23:13:06 2002
From: msn.tsf at hccnet.nl (Yoris)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 00:13:06 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] 11-year-old Math Class
References: <16600678.907366530@imcingular.com>
Message-ID: <002701c1bcbf$a6b66030$9600000a@NEWPC>

No: HPFGUIDX 35650

> It's possible, if not likely, that they do some algebra and trig in
Divination - likely Geometry too- and in potions, they're regularly
refreshing basic maths, including percentages and fractions. Further,
there's been debate here in the past as to whether Arithmancy may include
maths as well.
>
> Heidi Tandy

in the Dutch Harry Potter i think to remember Arithmancy is translated as
something like 'math/calculating predictioning' what strongly suggests it
involves ALOT of math

Yoris





From muellem at bc.edu  Sun Feb 24 00:00:41 2002
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 00:00:41 -0000
Subject: Snape and the faculty, foe glass, Vampire fluff
In-Reply-To: <a58odf+nm8j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a59af9+adve@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35651

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
 
>   We don't know 
> that Snape has no fear of garlic, since it's unclear whether the 
> turban smells of garlic or not.
I've always thought it did, as JKR made quite a bit of reference to 
"smells" in Chapter 8, The Potions Master in the SS(US hardcover 
version, page 134):
"His classroom smelled strongly of garlic, which everyone said was to 
ward of a vampire he'd met in Romania and was afraid would be coming 
back to get him one of these days" 
and on same page, same paragraph:
"..for another, they had noticed that a funny smell hung around the 
turban, and the Weasley twins instisted that it was stuffed full of 
garlic as well, so that Quirrell was protected wherever he went."

makes sense to me that Quirrell had quite a BO of garlic that hung 
around him.  Perhaps Voldermort had a particular smell as he was 
incorporated into the back of Quirrell's head, so the garlic was to 
mask that smell.  I, too, never bought into the whole vamp theory; 
like the unrequited love theory, it is too pat and I will quite 
disappointed if JKR succumbs to it.  I want Snape to be a nasty, 
ill-tempered MAN, not some vamp or half-breed of a vamp.  

Cole(who wonders if Snape turns out to be a Vampire, she just 
might offer her neck to him -- and that worries her)





From katehc2 at attbi.com  Sat Feb 23 18:25:15 2002
From: katehc2 at attbi.com (katehc2)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 18:25:15 -0000
Subject: Theory about Petunia, Vernon, and Severus Snape
Message-ID: <a58mqb+8kg2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35652

Tabouli's comments about Petunia have emboldened me.
		>Maybe until Lily snared James, Petunia festered in silence, 
half-resentful, half-admiring of her sister's powers. In fact, it 
was *Petunia*, Lily's slim, blonde Muggle sister, that James 
originally dated,after she turned up with her parents to watch a 
Hogwarts Quidditch match. They exchanged passionate owls all 
through term, and met in Hogsmeade on weekends. It wasn't 
until James' eye roved onto one of his "own kind", her red-haired
little sister, that Petunia developed the blistering hatred and 
jealousy we see today. 

I have been reading the messages for some time but have 
resisted commenting on some of the creative posts.  I am 
especially intrigued by the theories about Florence. 

 But, I wish to post about Petunia and Vernon and the
significance of their names.  JK Rowlings has a delight in word 
games and names.  Therefore I think it is not a coincidence that 
P. EVANS is made of the same letters as V. SNAPE.  Vernon is 
Severus Snape's older brother and that he and Petunia are both 
Squibs who met at a Quddich Match and therefore are familiar 
with Hofwarts.  Remember Vernon's reaction to Harry's letters 
and  his calling Dumbledore "that crackpot old fool", showing 
that he knew about him? Their reaction to magic (even the magic 
word "Please") is excessive.   My theory also states that Marjorie 
Dursley is actually a cousin (or a sister who also changed her 
name). It would account for Snape's conflicting emotions about 
Harry if he was not only his old antagonist James' son but also 
his brother's wife's nephew.  A really extended estranged 
relationship.

Grandma Kate





From klhurt at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 24 01:17:29 2002
From: klhurt at yahoo.com (Kelly Hurt)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 17:17:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Evil Fudge Acronym
Message-ID: <20020224011729.19214.qmail@web14205.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35653

This is my first attempt at an acronym so I humbly submit

Fudge Is Evil:  One Nasty Guy Opposes Old Dumbledore, Nixes Even
Severus Snape

Or

F.I.E.O.N.G.O.O.D.N.E.S.S.

Kelly the Yarn Junkie

=====
Pensieve
A Harry Potter List for Adults
Low Traffic - High Quality
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pensieve

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com



From klhurt at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 24 02:10:12 2002
From: klhurt at yahoo.com (Kelly Hurt)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 18:10:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Theory about Vernon
In-Reply-To: <a58mqb+8kg2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020224021012.4485.qmail@web14203.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35654

--- katehc2 wrote:

>Vernon is Severus Snape's older
>brother and that he and Petunia are
>both Squibs...

Sorry, but Vernon can't be a Squib.  In PS/SS Chap 1, as he left his
office, he was hugged by a man in a cloak who called him a 'muggle' and
he didn't know what the word 'muggle' meant.  Even a Squib should know
that.

Kelly the Yarn Junkie

=====
Pensieve
A Harry Potter List for Adults
Low Traffic - High Quality
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pensieve

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com



From huushiita at fangirl.org  Sun Feb 24 02:22:06 2002
From: huushiita at fangirl.org (Huushiita Shikita)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 21:22:06 -0500
Subject: Hello
In-Reply-To: <1014453237.1682.75301.m12@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1014453237.1682.75301.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020224022206.12517.qmail@animejunction.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35656

Hello hello all!!

I just recently joined up for HPfG, and I'm rightly enjoying it so far. Some of the topics go over my head, but I still enjoy them! Harry Potter is great!! I'm currently reading PoA, for the third time. I found out that GoF is by far the best, then PoA, then SS. I really don't like CoS. *shrugs* Although I am looking foward to what they'll be doing in the movie! YAY!

Anyway, I've got one simple question directed to Marina. What/Who is this George you keep talking about?? I'm rather confused by it, becuase it does remind me of the twins. *grins*

Looking foward to more of these discussions!

Huush.  
---
Free Anime Email at AnimeNation.com - Anime Shopping ,Links, Forums, News, and more!




From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Sun Feb 24 03:05:20 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 03:05:20 -0000
Subject: Fudge is Way Evil and I have the acronyms to prove it
Message-ID: <a59l9g+182n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35657

OK. I'm glad to see that there are those out there who, like myself, 
suspect that there's more to our lime-green-bowler-wearing Minister 
of Magic than meets the eye. Thanks to Kelly Hurt for 
F.I.E.O.N.G.O.O.D.N.E.S.S., a respectable acronym if ever there was 
one. (Check a couple three posts ahead of this one.) But I've got my 
own to propose, along with proof that the acronyms are true. (Much of 
which has already been proposed, but there's nothing like putting it 
all together, ne?)

::Stands at front of room. Clears throat.::

When last we left Fudge, he appeared to be playing the consummate 
ladder-climbing politician, worried more about the safety of his 
career than that of the people he is supposed to serve. And this 
isn't necessarily an incorrect conclusion, given that Dumbledore 
himself accuses Fudge of that very thing. But hidden in the text--as 
usual--are clues to Fudge's true nature. Clues that we would all 
overlook if we weren't so excruciatingly bored while waiting for Book 
5 that we have to pore over every sentence looking for Something, 
Anything, to liven things up. 

So here it is:
F.I.D.E.D.I.G.N.O.: Fudge Is Definitely an Evil-Doer--It's Generally 
Not Obvious
(pronounced 'fee-day-DEEG-no,' Spanish for trustworthy or reliable. I 
relish irony.)

I refer you all to GoF Chapter 36: The Parting of the Ways, beginning 
on page 703 (Scholastic edition). All there? Then let's proceed.

::Begins to pace the room while lighting a pipe. Chokes on the smoke. 
Sets the pipe down. Eyes those assembled. Continues pacing.::

As you all know, at this point the true identity of the false Moody 
has been revealed to be Bartemius Crouch Jr., former Death Eater, 
once believed to have died in Azkaban. Dumbledore has questioned him 
under Veritaserum to get his involvement in what happened after the 
Triwizard Tournament. Dumbledore then leaves him in the care of 
Profs. McGonagall and Snape as he sees to Harry's injuries, taking 
him to the infirmary. While Harry sleeps, Cornelius Fudge arrives at 
Hogwarts to question Crouch himself. He brings along a dementor "as 
protection." 

Harry is later awakened by an argument between McGonagall, Snape, and 
Fudge as they conveniently search for Dumbledore in the infirmary. It 
is revealed that no sooner had the dementor entered the office where 
Crouch was being kept than it administered the Kiss. Fudge defends 
his actions:

"'By all accounts, he is no loss!' blustered Fudge. 'It seems he has 
been responsible for several deaths!'

"'But he cannot now give testimony, Cornelius,' said Dumbledore. He 
was staring hard at Fudge, as though seeing him plainly for the first 
time. 'He cannot give evidence about why he killed those people.'"

::Spins on one heel to reverse direction, cape swirling about. (These 
things cannot be done without capes.) Dramatic pause.::

You see? Something just occurred to Dumbledore that hadn't before. 
Something about the fact that Crouch can't reveal any more. Surely, 
Dumbledore suspects that Fudge deliberately set the dementor on 
Crouch to silence him, so he couldn't name anymore names. Names like 
Cornelius Fudge, I daresay.

::Spins about again, cape swirling.::

And that's not all. In the next few paragraphs, Dumbledore explains 
how Crouch was instrumental in bringing Voldemort back to life. Fudge 
appears to disbelieve:

"'See here, Dumbledore,' said Fudge, and Harry was astonished to see 
a slight smile dawning on his face, 'you--you can't seriously believe 
that. You-Know-Who--back? Come now...'"

What is the meaning of this smile? Harry certainly doesn't know. But 
the smile cannot be insignificant because it persists for several 
more minutes.

"Dumbledore glanced around at Harry and saw that he was awake, but 
shook his head and said, 'I am afraid I cannot permit you to question 
Harry tonight.'

"Fudge's curious smile lingered. He too glanced at Harry..."

Fudge questions Harry's reliability. Dumbledore explains how Harry's 
story fits in with the facts. 

"Fudge still had that strange smile on his face. Once again, he 
glanced at Harry before answering."

Is this the smile of a man who believes his leg is being pulled? 
Perhaps. But Harry would have recognized such a smile. He would have 
interpreted Fudge's smile correctly and the narrator would have said 
so. But instead the smile is *strange.* What if it's the smile of a 
man who's heard the news he's been waiting to hear, but is having a 
hard time repressing his true emotions. Such a smile could only 
appear odd to Harry, because Harry doesn't guess the truth. But our 
beloved Auror--er--Author does know, and she's perfectly willing to 
drop bread crumbs for those wise enough to see the trail.

::Significant pause. Absently grabs the still-smoking pipe off the 
desk and chomps down on it. Chokes again. Clears throat. Continues 
pacing.::

The argument between Dumbledore and Fudge continues. Dumbledore tells 
Fudge they have to remove Azkaban from the control of the dementors. 
Fudge declares he'd be kicked out of office for even suggesting 
something so preposterous. Dumbledore says they have to make peace 
with the giants so they won't rejoin Voldemort. Again, Fudge protests 
that it would mean the end of his career. Page 708:

"'You are blinded,' said Dumbledore, his voice rising now, the aura 
of power around him palpable, his eyes blazing once more, 'by the 
love of the office you hold, Cornelius!'"

See, there's that accusation. But look at what he says next...

"'You place too much importance, and you always have done, on the so-
called purity of blood!'"

Missed it the first time, didn't you? Since when did we ever hear 
Fudge say anything about pure blood? Never! (I already looked. He 
doesn't.) But now Dumbledore reveals to us, the alert reader, that 
Fudge subscribes to the very core doctrine that Voldemort preached. 
The accusation seems to come out of nowhere! There's no reason for 
Dumbledore to mention it. Fudge certainly hasn't. But there it is, 
nonetheless, another clue to Fudge's true leanings.

::Pauses triumphantly. Grabs edge of cape and swirls it.::

The rest of the evidence against Fudge is more circumstantial, but I 
find it convincing nonetheless. Page 707.

"'The rest of us sleep less soundly in our beds, Cornelius, knowing 
that you have put Lord Voldemort's most dangerous supporters in the 
care of creatures who will join him the instant he asks them!' said 
Dumbledore."

Or in other words, putting the dementors in Azkaban was Fudge's idea. 
Hmmm. Is it possible that Fudge's affinity with the dementors is a by-
product of his true loyalties? Why put them there in the first place? 
That I don't know, but as a side note, it means they weren't there 
when Sirius Black was first put into Azkaban, nor were they there 
when the Aurors were catching DEs during and shortly after 
Voldemort's Reign of Terror. It also means that the dementors were 
preying mostly on Voldemort's supporters, formerly their allies. 
Creepy.

::Shudders.::

If it's true that Fudge is an extremely covert supporter of 
Voldemort, it could also explain in part how Sirius Black got framed 
and how his reputation as a mad murderer was spread. In PoA, when 
Fudge, McGonagall, Hagrid, and Prof. Flitwick explain the situation 
to Rosmerta, Fudge recalls his involvement. Page 208.

::Waits for people to get out PoA and turn to the right page. Picks 
up pipe and sniffs it. Moves to chomp down on it but thinks better of 
it. Sets pipe back down.::

Ready now?

"'...I was one of the first on the scene after Black murdered all 
those people. I--I will never forget it. I still dream about it 
sometimes. A crater in the middle of the street, so deep it had 
cracked the sewer below. Bodies everywhere. Muggles screaming. And 
Black standing there laughing, with what was left of Pettigrew in 
front of him...a heap of bloodstained robes and a few--a few 
fragments--'"

So, Black was laughing, was he? Do we hear that from Sirius when he 
tells his side of the story? Does he say, "as soon as Peter 
disappeared the absurdity of it all struck me and I couldn't help but 
laugh?" No! Why would Sirius be laughing? I maintain that he wasn't 
laughing at all--maybe sobbing, maybe convulsing in agony, maybe 
standing there, stunned, but not laughing like a madman. I maintain 
that Fudge willfully inserted that detail into his version of events 
to make Sirius look bad. 

Why, some have asked, did they not simply perform a Priori Incantatum 
on Black's wand or Peter's (assuming he left it behind)? Why didn't 
they notice that bloodstained robes and bodily fragments are NOT the 
byproducts of Avada Kedavra, the Death Eater's curse of choice for 
murder? Because Fudge knew that Pettigrew was the real murderer and 
the real betrayer of the Potters' Fidelius Charm, and that framing 
Sirius would make people stop looking for Pettigrew. As the first on 
the scene, and as one questioning muggles, he could alter his report 
to his superiors any way he chose. Granted, Pettigrew did a good job 
of framing Sirius on his own, but I believe that Fudge tied up any 
stray ends that may have been left behind, including possibly 
fiddling with the wands to make any Priori Incantatum fail. And with 
Barty Crouch Sr.'s zeal to throw Voldemort's supporters in Azkaban 
with all dispatch--and without a trial--any clues suggesting Sirius's 
innocence would be overlooked and forgotten. And that was fine with 
Fudge.

Furthermore, and this is pushing it, I know, but Fudge's fatherly 
manner toward Harry earlier in PoA, when he met him at the Leaky 
Cauldron, might simply be a way to make sure nothing happened to 
Harry before Voldemort could finish him off himself. Which is, as we 
know, what Voldemort wants. Someone like Fudge, who guard's his 
Lord's prize, would surely be rewarded.

So there you have it: F.I.D.E.D.I.G.N.O. Or if you like a more pithy, 
less ironic version, try F.I.E.: Fudge. Is. Evil.

Thank you. Dismissed.

--Dicentra, who has never smoked anything before and therefore should 
have known better about the pipe





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 24 03:38:08 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 03:38:08 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew/Scabbers: coward or mole?
Message-ID: <a59n70+dcte@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35658

My niece asked me a question about Pettigrew/Scabbers that I thought 
I'd pass on to the group.

Why didn't Pettigrew support Voldemort in SSt or ChofS? I would think 
even a semi-skilled animagus would have made a crucial difference 
tipping the balence of the battle to evil.

I suggested that Scabbers was a coward more than an undercover mole 
agent. Despite saying he was waiting for LV to come back, he must 
have heard Voldemort discussed by HRH in SSt. He must have heard LV 
siscussed at the Burrow in the summer between 1st & 2nd year. And as 
a DE, he should have recognized all the references to Tom Riddle in 
ChofS.

I have a theory about Scabbers. Being an unregistered animagus, 
Pettigrew was probably not as highly skilled as say McGonagall. There 
are probably all types of spells to consider when transfiguring. 
Would Scabbers keep his human mind or take on rattish urges?

I remember they have shapechanging magicians in Piers Anthony's Xanth 
series and a danger of shapechanging was that the instincts of the 
animal would overcome the magician (a magician morphed into a dragon 
would feel 'dragonish' and have the urge to eat people)

Could Pettigrew's mind have suffered from so long a period as a rat? 
Ron complained that Scabbers spent most of his time sleeping. Is this 
a rat behavior or just a lazy magician?

Also consider a teenager who most likely wasn't of the highest moral 
integrity. Pettigrew could morph into an animal who could spy 
unobserved on just about anyone. Want to bet he wandered through the 
girls' shower or into the teachers' offices to cheat on tests? 

Uncmark




From mlfrasher at aol.com  Sun Feb 24 04:11:02 2002
From: mlfrasher at aol.com (mlfrasher at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 23:11:02 EST
Subject: Snape/George...I'm not an expert
Message-ID: <17c.41127e5.29a9c1d6@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35659

My suggestion that Snape may have eventually realized that being with the DEs 
was a bad idea...ummm was missed in translation or whatnot....  (and come 
onnnn then...no one thought that the thought of Snape rolling his eyes during 
a marathon pep session with Voldemort and an evil pose down was in the least 
amusing?!)

I was trying to point out a few common sensical (for now I'll use that phrase 
since I can't think of a better one right now) musings.  Like it would be 
boring to be in Voldemort's inner circle after a while and being a sheep 
could have had something to do with it.  At no time did I mean to suggest 
that this was the prime or only motivation for Snape's decision-making.  I 
just feel that it's been ignored in discussion.  I would be very disappointed 
if JKR resorted to such a simplistic explanation of his behavior.

DIANA theory commentary:

>>Yes, yes, yes! Diana couldn't agree more. She likes her Snape all 
angst-ridden and tortured.
But the tension she finds in him around the time of his defection is the 
tension between the two world-views represented by the Dark and Light sides. 
Not 'Shall I ally myself with the forces of Good or the forces of Evil?', but 

the dawning realization that there *was* after all a question to be asked in 
the first place. Mere physical survivalism doesn't come into it at all. The 
maintenance of sanity and integrity however does.

I HIGHLY doubt that making a decision to leave a very powerful group of 
wizards hell bent on destroying the world as most people know it, WOULDN'T 
take into account "mere physical survivalism".  You almost make it sound like 
survival or living is a secondary consideration to morality and integrity.  
I'm guessing that most people in the Muggle world (perhaps with the exception 
of those who skydive or base jump...;)  ) and the wizarding community possess 
that  all important gene of self preservation.  My previous post, I think 
explains this better -- that these groups usually decay on the inside because 
of power and the greed that comes with it.

Umm to recap:  I do solemnly swear that:

Snape is a real jerk sometimes.
Snape is ambitious and often cruel.
Snape is a character whose true intent has yet to be revealed, but involves 
black, white, and grey issues, which probably have to do with morality and 
basic survival.
Snape is a little bit country and a little bit rock and roll.
Snape could do with a little Pert Plus.

And about 20 other things I don't have the time for here.  :)

margaraeta, who adores this character even though he's what my mother always 
warned me about


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





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Feb 24 05:31:35 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 05:31:35 -0000
Subject: Snape/George...I'm not an expert
In-Reply-To: <17c.41127e5.29a9c1d6@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a59trn+89tr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35660

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., mlfrasher at a... wrote:

> margaraeta, who adores this character even though he's what my 
> mother always warned me about

(Yes, I know this should be on OT.) Hey, Raeta, did your mum REALLY 
warn you against men with yellow teeth and greasy hair who were 
sarcastic and unfair and cruel and had formerly been a member of a 
terrorist group? My mum was too unimaginative to think that I would 
ever be attracted to someone so unattractive. I hate to admit it, but 
she was right: *I* won't kiss dear Sevvie until he takes off that 
illusion of his teeth being rotted and broken -- or gets dentures.





From elfundeb at aol.com  Sun Feb 24 06:18:39 2002
From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 06:18:39 -0000
Subject: A Different Look at Snape
In-Reply-To: <a576fp+h363@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5a0k0+1h2s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35661

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "brewpub44" <brewpub44 at e...> wrote:
> Cheers!
> 
> I wanted to put forth a different look at Snape, more specifically 
> what a nasty teacher he is to his students.
> 
> > Potions are not trivial 
> things, and poisons are real things. And if Harry is hated by DEs 
and 
> LV, is it unreasonable to assume someone will try to poison him? 
Not 
> at all! In fact, if he is so seemingly impervious to LV's magic, 
> poison to me sounds like one solution (so would a bullet, but we're 
> not going there right now).
> 
> Not only that, but Snape has seen the DEs. He has been one of them. 
> He has been daring and bold in his betrayal of them, and 
understands 
> he could very well pay the price himself. He knows the darkness 
that 
> confronts his students.
> 
> So here is the lesson I am trying to impart: Snape is the best 
friend 
> the Big Three have. Pampering them will not help them at all, 
making 
> them tough, smart, skilled, and capable will. It's a tough world, 
and 
> requires tough people.
> 
> A Barkeep in Diagon Alley

I see Snape's personal meanness to Harry & Co. in a similar light.  I 
believe Snape says somewhere (I would be grateful if someone can 
point me to this quote as I'm suddenly afraid that I completely 
imagined it) something to the effect that James was effectively done 
in by a belief in his own invincibility, which Dumbledore implicitly 
fostered by letting him get away with breaking rules with impunity. 
Snape undoubtedly knows better than anyone at Hogwarts just what kind 
of psychological punishment LV can inflict.  So he inflicts some of 
his own and Harry learns to take it.  Much of Snape's behavior toward 
Harry, beginning with the "new celebrity" line in PS/SS right on 
through his dramatic reading of the Witch Weekly article in GoF, 
appears to be calculated to remind Harry that he is not in control 
and he is not immune from danger.  I think Snape truly believes that 
if he doesn't suppress any invincibility tendencies Harry may have, 
then LV will have been handed a great weapon.  And Snape, who is a 
traitor in LV's eyes, cannot afford to have the good guys lose 
because he would not survive an LV victory.  So he has every 
incentive to do everything he can to enhance Harry's chances of 
success.

In other words, I think Snape is intentionally toughening up Harry, 
whether or not there are also other reasons for Snape's cruelty, e.g. 
that he hates the 
Gryffindors for their apparent position as Dumbledore's favorites who 
get away with [attempted] murder, and/or a need to counter 
Dumbledore's favoritism by showing similar favoritism to the 
Slytherins, or whether his actions are made easy because Harry's 
appearance reminds him of James and Lily.   

The flip side to this is that while Snape SEEMS to favor the 
Slytherins, he is not equipping them with the real world survival 
skills that the Gryffindors are getting.  Leading Draco on to believe 
that he appoves of his suck-up comments ("I'll tell Father you're the 
best teacher . . .") and letting the Slytherins get away with 
classroom behavior that would earn the Gryffindors detentions isn't 
going to make the Slytherins tough.  So if 
some of the Slytherins end up fighting with the DEs, they will not 
have the preparation that Harry & Co. received, right under the 
Slytherins' noses.

Debbie, thanking all the Snapes in her life even though they 
still make her angry




From hermione_ew at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 24 06:20:03 2002
From: hermione_ew at yahoo.com (hermione_ew)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 06:20:03 -0000
Subject: Voldemort's Pursuit of Potters
In-Reply-To: <20020223205100.21211.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net>
Message-ID: <a5a0mj+o9q1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35662

> I think that Voldemort probably was trying to catch up with the 
Potters for about a year since there IS *something* about Harry that 
Voldemort knew needed to be squelched, and soon!  

I agree with that statement:

Voldemort must have been after Harry alone.  In PS/SS it is stated 
that Lily only died because she was trying to protect Harry.  Also, 
in PoA, Harry hear's James' voice saying, "Lily take Harry and go, 
it's him."  these two points show that Voldemort was never even after 
Lily and James, but that he was after Harry.

Going back to the Magic Eyes theory from a while ago, Harry must be a 
wizard with some sort of elevated powers, significant enough that he 
was a real threat to Voldemort.  Voldemort wanted to eliminate Harry 
while he was a baby, and posed no apparent threat.  Voldy must have 
known that once with Dumbledore, Harry would be able to practice, and 
pose an even more significant threat to the dark side.

Now that Harry will be turning 15, and with Voldemort's return, it is 
possible that Dumbledore will reveal why Voldemort was after Harry in 
the first place, and start to train him for the inevitable battle 
that will probably take place at the end of year 7.  It has been made 
clear through the first four books that Harry is really the only 
wizard that can stand up to and possibly defeat Voldemort.  Although 
Voldemort fears Dumbledore, that might just be a leftover emotion 
from his Hogwarts years, when Dubledore was the only professor not to 
trust him despite his Percy-like record.  Voldemort fears Dumbledor's 
knowledge and wisdom, but not so much his powers.  

Whatever Voldemort's view of Dumbledore is, it is clear that he keeps 
underestimating Harry's powers, which will probably lend a factor in 
his downfall.

Hannah
(The muggle equivilent of Hermione)








From lightglasshope at yahoo.com.au  Sun Feb 24 10:12:05 2002
From: lightglasshope at yahoo.com.au (lightglasshope)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 10:12:05 -0000
Subject: Voldemort's Pursuit of Potters
In-Reply-To: <a5a0mj+o9q1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5ae9l+s1i2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35663

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

> Going back to the Magic Eyes theory from a while ago, Harry must 
be a 
> wizard with some sort of elevated powers, significant enough that 
he 
> was a real threat to Voldemort.  Voldemort wanted to eliminate 
Harry 
> while he was a baby, and posed no apparent threat.  Voldy must 
have 
> known that once with Dumbledore, Harry would be able to practice, 
and 
> pose an even more significant threat to the dark side.


I've been lurking for a week or so, and this is my first post so I 
hope I don't tread on any toes or make any huge no nos. 

Anyway, after reading this post, I went back and thought about it. I 
don't know if this has been posted before, so I apologise if it has.

It does seem clear that Voldemort was after Harry, and possibly 
James, but not Lily. But there must be some reason for him to want 
to kill a baby, as obviously, a baby wouldn't normally be a threat. 
So there has to be something that Voldemort knows, and Dumbledore 
knows, but is not common knowlege, otherwise with all the wizarding 
children around, someone is bound to have let leak to Harry by now.

My mind immediately sprung to perhaps a prediction. Professor 
Trelawney obviously came to mind and this quote in PoA by 
Dumbledore "That brings her total of real predictions up to two. I 
should offer her a pay rise"

What was the other prediction? I don't believe Dumbledore mentioned 
it. Could it have been that Prof Trelawney predicted LV's downfall 
by the hands of Harry Potter? Could that have been what caused LV to 
be so desperate to get to him as a baby. Anyway, just a thought.





From Caeser56 at si.rr.com  Sun Feb 24 10:37:33 2002
From: Caeser56 at si.rr.com (caes56)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 10:37:33 -0000
Subject: Genetically Enhanced Harry?
Message-ID: <a5afpd+j2c0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35664

Hi All! I was just reading a post from Hannah(hermione_ew) and a 
thought struck me. Of course, I haven't seen it posted before- or, 
if I have, accept my apologies very sincerely because I have 
forgotten it and seem to think it's my idea. Anyways, this is the 
passage I read, which i will quote just so you all can see how a 
weird, polluted New York mind like mine thinks:

-----------Hannah Said:-------------
>Going back to the Magic Eyes theory from a while ago, Harry must be 
>a wizard with some sort of elevated powers, significant enough that 
>he was a real threat to Voldemort.  Voldemort wanted to eliminate 
>Harry while he was a baby, and posed no apparent threat.  Voldy 
>must have known that once with Dumbledore, Harry would be able to 
>practice, and pose an even more significant threat to the dark side.
-----------------------------------

Being an avid Star Trek fan, (though not as much as I am a fan of 
HP, since reading the novels and seeing the movie) a thought struck 
me from an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, and an episode 
of Star Trek Voyager. 
    In the episode of ST:TNG I am referring to(sorry, I am not 
positive of the exact name of the episode, but I firmly believe it 
is "I,Borg"), the Enterprise discovers a crash site and they also 
find an injured borg.(I am sorry for those of you who don't watch 
ST, but explaining the borg would take a little too long, at least 
for this post. Suffice it to say here that they are a race of 
mechanically-enhanced beings that all think as one, like a big 
robot, who try to assimilate everything they come into contact with. 
They are bad news in any sense.) Doctor Crusher demands to take the 
injured borg aboard the ship, which the captain regretably 
does.However, he then orders a "virus" implanted into the borg, 
which they would send back to the collective(another name for the 
Borg race) and hopefully "infect" the Borg and kill them off. I risk 
going no further, lest I ruin the plot for any ST fans who haven't 
seen the episode.
     The Star Trek Voyager episode is very similar to this,in that 
they encounter the Borg as well, however, this time they also 
encounter a race of people who are weak but have invented an 
ingenious method to fight the borg. A little more explaination for 
the Non-Trekkies(sorry to those who know this, so please forgive the 
little diversion)- the way the Borg reproduce, if you could call it 
that, is by literally "assimilating" other races. That is, they 
forcibly turn beings, be they Human or any other, and make them Borg 
by implanting cybernetic devices. So what this race did was 
genetically encode a virus into a child, and then when he came of 
age tried to send him off to be assmilated and hopefully destroy the 
race. 
     Thank you to all of you who have stuck with me this far, for 
now I am finally reaching my point! So, as Hannah said, what if 
Harry were a wizard with "elevated" powers, but not by accident? 
There was a theory a bit back that Harry was Godric's heir- what if, 
instead of being Godric's heir, Harry was made from inception or 
somehow infused with more magic from birth to be able to fight 
Voldemort? The other possibility being that there was some sort 
of "prophecy" untold as of yet of the birth of a "special" boy, 
which Voldemort is trying to kill to prevent his own downfall. This 
could explain why there is such a big hint on Harry's eyes. Also, 
this would fit very well with JKR's style of writing, that is, 
emulating classical tales into her stories.For references of similar 
classical tales, see the Bible, the story of Oedipus, and for those 
80's movie freaks like myself, Willow.
     I realize this is probably similar to what Hannah must have 
originally thought, I am just trying to expand the idea a bit from 
what she said. As always, thoughts and criticisms are welcome and 
encouraged!

-Vin

  "I'm a little bit odd. My favorite number is 254,923."
                    -George Carlin, "Brain Droppings"
 





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Sun Feb 24 12:57:17 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:57:17 -0000
Subject: Snape/George...I'm not an expert
In-Reply-To: <17c.41127e5.29a9c1d6@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a5anvd+psv3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35665

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., mlfrasher at a... wrote:
> My suggestion that Snape may have eventually realized that being 
with the DEs 
> was a bad idea...ummm was missed in translation or whatnot....  
(and come 
> onnnn then...no one thought that the thought of Snape rolling his 
eyes during 
> a marathon pep session with Voldemort and an evil pose down was in 
the least 
> amusing?!)

Well, I thought it was funny...
> I HIGHLY doubt that making a decision to leave a very powerful 
group of 
> wizards hell bent on destroying the world as most people know it, 
WOULDN'T 
> take into account "mere physical survivalism".  You almost make it 
sound like 
> survival or living is a secondary consideration to morality and 
integrity.  

I would say that in such a situation, survival would *have* to be a 
secondary consideration.  It couldn't be abandoned completely, of 
course -- that's why Snape snuck off to see Dumbledore on the sly 
instead of just standing up in the middle of a DE meeting and 
telling Voldemort he's a shmuck.  But when in comes right down to 
it, Snape abandoned his sworn loyalty to Voldemort in the middle of 
a war which Voldemort appeared to be winning -- and then he followed 
that up by becoming a spy.  Both actions reduced his chances of 
surviving the war by a few orders of magnitude.  The fact that he 
did what he did, rather than grabbing the nearest broom and taking 
off for Australia, suggests that he had higher priorities than 
saving his skin.


Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From lennyb2002 at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 24 11:32:27 2002
From: lennyb2002 at yahoo.com (lennyb2002)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 11:32:27 -0000
Subject: A Different Look at Snape
In-Reply-To: <a5a0k0+1h2s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5aj0b+k7u1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35666

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elfundeb" <elfundeb at a...> wrote:
 
> The flip side to this is that while Snape SEEMS to favor the 
> Slytherins, he is not equipping them with the real world survival 
> skills that the Gryffindors are getting.  Leading Draco on to 
believe 
> that he appoves of his suck-up comments ("I'll tell Father you're 
the 
> best teacher . . .") and letting the Slytherins get away with 
> classroom behavior that would earn the Gryffindors detentions isn't 
> going to make the Slytherins tough.  So if 
> some of the Slytherins end up fighting with the DEs, they will not 
> have the preparation that Harry & Co. received, right under the 
> Slytherins' noses.

Slytherins are already fighting as DE's. In particular, the fathers(?)
of Crabbe, Goyle, and Malfoy. Snape has seen this friendship once. In 
his class, he sees the cycle repeating itself with their sons, Draco, 
Crabbe, and Goyle. There hasn't been anything mentioned that suggests 
that Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle's relationship is anything different 
than Lucious' friendship with the adult Crabbe and Goyle. So, young 
Draco, like his father, has surrounded himself with yes men, not 
friends. The Crabbes and Goyles provide an easy relationship for the 
Malfoys not necessarily one that's right.
     So, I'm arguing this: if we say that Snape's teaching isn't what 
it seems, then, so is his favoring of Draco. I don't think he's 
necessarily preparing Slytherins to fall on the battlefield, but to 
fall in their rigid social constructs. If Draco, in particular 
doesn't catch on, then he will definitely lack the grit to war it out 
on the battlefield. Overall, Snape is trying to provide Draco with 
something that will ensure that Draco fights for the right side.  
     Yes, Snape derives pleasure dishing out punishment. However, he 
has been just as consistent in his Aunt Petunia like care for Draco 
as his menacing of Harry and torturing of Neville. There is a reason 
for his heavy sensitivity and supporting of Draco.
      In GF, The trio overhears Draco saying that his mom wants him 
at Hogwart's so that he can be closer to home. Narcissa doesn't seem 
to visit much does she? Later, Draco blindsides Harry for asking if 
Draco has "seen (his) mother lately?" She is the female Narcissus; 
she does not care for others-including Draco. Lucious cares to Draco, 
but mainly as a political confidant or employee. Lucious spends money 
on Draco, but overall, Draco seems heir to emotionally impotent 
parents. Draco has not accepted his disappointment with them. Without 
a better alternative for a parental figure, Draco will emulate his 
parents. Snape tries to provide this different role model to Draco. 
Snape hopes that one day, Draco will find the strength to refuse a 
tatoo on his arm unlike Lucious.
       Draco reminds Snape of his younger self. That's why Snape has 
no problem treating Draco so favorably. As with Neville and Harry, 
Snape knows what Draco inherits in the world and what mistakes should 
be avoided. The mistake for Draco, like Harry, is being like his 
father. To avoid emulating his father, Draco needs a better option. 
Snape offers Draco the emotional care he lacks at home. Should Draco  
choose to be like Snape rather than his father, Draco releases 
himself from the easy path. If Draco learns to listen his feelings, 
he could accept his parents faults and admit that he doesn't like 
Crabbe and Goyle. If Draco doesn't trust his feelings, his easy path 
leads to serving evil. Draco will become a Death Eater like Lucious, 
his father, who serves LV halfheartedly.
       So, here's what I predict happens somewhere in the remaining 
books. Snape is indeed the traitor amongst the Death Eaters. LV makes 
Lucious, Crabbe, and Goyle responsible for delivering Snape to be 
killed. They decide to involve their children to get him. Lucious 
tells Draco the plan, expecting Draco to comply. Draco is torn 
between obeying his father, or saving his favorite teacher and 
risking himself and life as he's known it. 

Thanks for reading. I hope it made sense.     

"lennyb2002"
         





From Edblanning at aol.com  Sun Feb 24 14:50:35 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 09:50:35 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fudge is Way Evil and I have the acronyms to prove it
Message-ID: <12e.cfe3cc9.29aa57bb@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35667

In a message dated 24/02/02 03:06:22 GMT Standard Time, 
bonnie at niche-associates.com writes:

<snip>
> Cornelius Fudge arrives at 
> Hogwarts to question Crouch himself. He brings along a dementor "as 
> protection." 
> 
> Harry is later awakened by an argument between McGonagall, Snape, and 
> Fudge as they conveniently search for Dumbledore in the infirmary. It 
> is revealed that no sooner had the dementor entered the office where 
> Crouch was being kept than it administered the Kiss. Fudge defends 
> his actions:
> 
> "'By all accounts, he is no loss!' blustered Fudge. 'It seems he has 
> been responsible for several deaths!'
> 
> "'But he cannot now give testimony, Cornelius,' said Dumbledore. He 
> was staring hard at Fudge, as though seeing him plainly for the first 
> time. 'He cannot give evidence about why he killed those people.'"
> 
> ::Spins on one heel to reverse direction, cape swirling about. (These 
> things cannot be done without capes.) Dramatic pause.::
> 
> You see? Something just occurred to Dumbledore that hadn't before. 
> Something about the fact that Crouch can't reveal any more. Surely, 
> Dumbledore suspects that Fudge deliberately set the dementor on 
> Crouch to silence him, so he couldn't name anymore names. Names like 
> Cornelius Fudge, I daresay.
> 
I had considered bringing this up in my original Evil Fudge post (35393, for 
anyone who's interested) as that elimination of Crouch by the Dementor is 
just *so* convenient: we've mentioned this before in respect of the Evil 
Bagman. Now just *who* wanted to silence him? Fudge or JKR? ( JKR is 
Ever-so-Evil?? no, no, just kidding!)
I suppose my only misgiving about this interpretation was that I  see Fudge 
more as taking which ever  side seems to be winning at the time: he supported 
Voldemort, or at least let himself be corrupted by Rookwood, at a time when 
Voldemort seemed invincible, then got on with being quite respectable after 
Voldy's fall. However he still had a lot to cover up. On reconsideration, 
though, if he was still a covert Voldy supporter, then he might have wanted 
to cover up not only for himself, but for Bagman too. And of course, given 
Crouch Jr's views on less-than-loyal DEs, he might seriously have feared for 
his personal safety, as Snape surmises.
> 
> ::Spins about again, cape swirling.::
> 
> And that's not all. In the next few paragraphs, Dumbledore explains 
> how Crouch was instrumental in bringing Voldemort back to life. Fudge 
> appears to disbelieve:
> 
> <snip quote, emphasising Fudge's smile
> 
> "Fudge's curious smile lingered. He too glanced at Harry..."
> 
> Fudge questions Harry's reliability. Dumbledore explains how Harry's 
> story fits in with the facts. 
> 
> "Fudge still had that strange smile on his face. Once again, he 
> glanced at Harry before answering."
> 
> Is this the smile of a man who believes his leg is being pulled? 
> Perhaps. But Harry would have recognized such a smile. He would have 
> interpreted Fudge's smile correctly and the narrator would have said 
> so. But instead the smile is *strange.* What if it's the smile of a 
> man who's heard the news he's been waiting to hear, but is having a 
> hard time repressing his true emotions. Such a smile could only 
> appear odd to Harry, because Harry doesn't guess the truth. But our 
> beloved Auror--er--Author does know, and she's perfectly willing to 
> drop bread crumbs for those wise enough to see the trail.

Perhaps, though it may equally be the nervous, disbelieving smile of the man 
who's just heard the very  last thing he wanted to hear. Not all of 
Voldemort's former supporters are delighted to have him back, are they? What 
would people like the Lestranges want to do to him, particularly if they knew 
he had once been a supporter of Voldemort.

> ::Significant pause. Absently grabs the still-smoking pipe off the 
> desk and chomps down on it. Chokes again. Clears throat. Continues 
> pacing.::
> 
> The argument between Dumbledore and Fudge continues. Dumbledore tells 
> Fudge they have to remove Azkaban from the control of the dementors. 
> Fudge declares he'd be kicked out of office for even suggesting 
> something so preposterous. Dumbledore says they have to make peace 
> with the giants so they won't rejoin Voldemort. Again, Fudge protests 
> that it would mean the end of his career. Page 708:
> 
> "'You are blinded,' said Dumbledore, his voice rising now, the aura 
> of power around him palpable, his eyes blazing once more, 'by the 
> love of the office you hold, Cornelius!'"
> 
> See, there's that accusation. But look at what he says next...
> 
> "'You place too much importance, and you always have done, on the so-
> called purity of blood!'"
> 
> Missed it the first time, didn't you? Since when did we ever hear 
> Fudge say anything about pure blood? Never! (I already looked. He 
> doesn't.) But now Dumbledore reveals to us, the alert reader, that 
> Fudge subscribes to the very core doctrine that Voldemort preached. 
> The accusation seems to come out of nowhere! There's no reason for 
> Dumbledore to mention it. Fudge certainly hasn't. But there it is, 
> nonetheless, another clue to Fudge's true leanings.
> 
Agreed. One of my original proofs of his evilness.

> ::Pauses triumphantly. Grabs edge of cape and swirls it.::
> 
> The rest of the evidence against Fudge is more circumstantial, but I 
> find it convincing nonetheless. Page 707.
> 
> "'The rest of us sleep less soundly in our beds, Cornelius, knowing 
> that you have put Lord Voldemort's most dangerous supporters in the 
> care of creatures who will join him the instant he asks them!' said 
> Dumbledore."
> 
> Or in other words, putting the dementors in Azkaban was Fudge's idea. 
> Hmmm. Is it possible that Fudge's affinity with the dementors is a by-
> product of his true loyalties? Why put them there in the first place? 
> That I don't know, but as a side note, it means they weren't there 
> when Sirius Black was first put into Azkaban, nor were they there 
> when the Aurors were catching DEs during and shortly after 
> Voldemort's Reign of Terror. It also means that the dementors were 
> preying mostly on Voldemort's supporters, formerly their allies. 
> Creepy.

And the Lestranges won't thank him for that!

> 
> ::Shudders.::
> If it's true that Fudge is an extremely covert supporter of 
> Voldemort, it could also explain in part how Sirius Black got framed 
> and how his reputation as a mad murderer was spread. In PoA, when 
> Fudge, McGonagall, Hagrid, and Prof. Flitwick explain the situation 
> to Rosmerta, Fudge recalls his involvement. Page 208.
> 
> ::Waits for people to get out PoA and turn to the right page. Picks 
> up pipe and sniffs it. Moves to chomp down on it but thinks better of 
> it. Sets pipe back down.::
> 
> Ready now?
> 
> "'...I was one of the first on the scene after Black murdered all 
> those people. I--I will never forget it. I still dream about it 
> sometimes. A crater in the middle of the street, so deep it had 
> cracked the sewer below. Bodies everywhere. Muggles screaming. And 
> Black standing there laughing, with what was left of Pettigrew in 
> front of him...a heap of bloodstained robes and a few--a few 
> fragments--'"
> 
> So, Black was laughing, was he? Do we hear that from Sirius when he 
> tells his side of the story? Does he say, "as soon as Peter 
> disappeared the absurdity of it all struck me and I couldn't help but 
> laugh?" No! Why would Sirius be laughing? I maintain that he wasn't 
> laughing at all--maybe sobbing, maybe convulsing in agony, maybe 
> standing there, stunned, but not laughing like a madman. I maintain 
> that Fudge willfully inserted that detail into his version of events 
> to make Sirius look bad. 
> 
No, sorry I agree with those who think that Sirius *was* hysterical, and with 
good reason. Weren't there other witnesses ?( shakey ground as it doesn't 
seem to matter really in the framing-of-Sirius scenario)
> 
> Why, some have asked, did they not simply perform a Priori Incantatum 
> on Black's wand or Peter's (assuming he left it behind)? Why didn't 
> they notice that bloodstained robes and bodily fragments are NOT the 
> byproducts of Avada Kedavra, the Death Eater's curse of choice for 
> murder? Because Fudge knew that Pettigrew was the real murderer and 
> the real betrayer of the Potters' Fidelius Charm, and that framing 
> Sirius would make people stop looking for Pettigrew. As the first on 
> the scene, and as one questioning muggles, he could alter his report 
> to his superiors any way he chose. Granted, Pettigrew did a good job 
> of framing Sirius on his own, but I believe that Fudge tied up any 
> stray ends that may have been left behind, including possibly 
> fiddling with the wands to make any Priori Incantatum fail. And with 
> Barty Crouch Sr.'s zeal to throw Voldemort's supporters in Azkaban 
> with all dispatch--and without a trial--any clues suggesting Sirius's 
> innocence would be overlooked and forgotten. And that was fine with 
> Fudge.
> 
The whole wand business  (deriving from my obsession with working out why 
Pettigrew's wand was missing) was my original reason for mistrusting him:
(Quoting myself)
>Think for a moment. One of the biggest problems with Pettigrew's escape plan 
is >the evidence which Sirius' wand could give via *prior incantato*. Sirius' 
descent >into hysteria and his guilt-induced 'confession'  couldn't be 
predicted. If he had >kept calm and demanded that his wand be allowed to give 
its evidence, his >innocence might have been demonstrated instantly. 
>What if someone (Fudge) substituted the guilty wand for Sirius' wand. No 
danger >of the verdict (not that it came to trial) being overturned. No 
danger of any >deranged tale that it was really Pettigrew who had killed the 
muggles being >believed.
>So that could be where Pettigrew's wand ended up.

I also go on to suggest that around this time  Pettigrew passes on 
Voldemort's wand which he has rescued (but without a clear view as to where 
it end up for the next 13 years. Hey, what if Fudge has it stored in the MoM, 
where young Crouch manages to gain access to it via his imperio'd father?)

> Furthermore, and this is pushing it, I know, but Fudge's fatherly 
> manner toward Harry earlier in PoA, when he met him at the Leaky 
> Cauldron, might simply be a way to make sure nothing happened to 
> Harry before Voldemort could finish him off himself. Which is, as we 
> know, what Voldemort wants. Someone like Fudge, who guard's his 
> Lord's prize, would surely be rewarded.
> 
> 
Well this seems to be Crouch Jr's *modus operandi*, doesn't it , so perhaps 
it's not so far-fetched. Alternatively, as he thought  that Sirius was trying 
to get to Harry, he might have wanted to get there first, to make sure that 
he didn't get the chance to tell Harry the truth and get Dumbledore on his 
side.
> 
> So there you have it: F.I.D.E.D.I.G.N.O. Or if you like a more pithy, 
> less ironic version, try F.I.E.: Fudge. Is. Evil.
> 
> Thank you. Dismissed.
> 
> 
F.I.E. indeed!

Eloise, ( who'd been wondering where her pipe and cape had got to. Still, 
you're welcome to the pipe, I didn't get on with it either.)
P.S. I've always wanted to say how cool I think your name is.


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




From porphyria at mindspring.com  Sun Feb 24 17:58:51 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 09:58:51 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] the Vampire theory
In-Reply-To: <a58odf+nm8j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <28D5C380-2950-11D6-95A2-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35668

Just replying to some replies here... First off, I need to thank Judy, 
Yoris, and jklb66 for their kind words about my last post on why Snape 
oughtn't be a Vampire. I feel all gushy inside! See kids, we have to 
band together to drive a stake through the heart of this theory whenever 
it rears its ugly head. ;-) And I'm so happy that you found my Foe Glass 
thingie helpful. I can't let you all be needlessly upset by spurious 
evidence.

And to Pippin, who has obviously given the Vampire matter a lot of 
thought, I want to assure you that I respect your position on this, even 
though I disagree, and I think that since one can't prove or disprove 
Vampirism based on the canon so far, it really boils down to what an 
individual reader wants.

You suggested:

> Rowling could be making the point that?
> Snape has assimilated and could live as a normal wizard, could
> fit in, except that he wouldn't be welcome in normal society just
> because he is a vampire, a member of a despised race. That's
> different than being an ex-Death Eater, which was a choice, or an
> uncontrollably violent werewolf, or a magically handicapped
> Muggle,? or a culturally ignorant Muggleborn.

Interesting, and yes, it could be true. But personally I find most 
appealing the idea that Snape's problems are entirely his own fault; he 
has no one else to blame for the mistakes he's made. This, to my mind, 
makes his sense of guilt a little weightier than that of Lupin, who 
can't help being a werewolf (although his guilt is interesting too, for 
other reasons), or the regret of Sirius, who never choose to do anything 
bad but merely made a well-intentioned mistake, or least of all the 
accidents of birth which pose problems for other characters. I guess 
it's the guilt thing; I like the guilt. However, one could just as 
easily say that a blameless character who is forced to deal with the 
negative stereotypes foist upon him is more interesting; it's really a 
matter of preference. Of course you're saying that you can have it both 
ways with Snape...

> I agree that it's heaping an awful lot of baggage on
> Snape to make him a vampire and an ex-Death Eater, but
> Rowling wasn't afraid to put two monsters in the Castle, so why
> should she be afraid to give Snape more than one issue?

but I like keeping his well-deserved sense of guilt unsullied from the 
effects that anti-vampire prejudice might have upon it. So I'm still 
rooting for the 100% human option.

Pippin added:

> I agree that pale, thin, interesting, angry/depressed characters
> who swoop around in black are a cliche, but that is true even if
> they aren't vampires, so I can't see that being a vampire makes it
> worse.

To which I can only say, hmmmph! Long live the pale, thin, interesting, 
angry/depressed humans who swoop around in black. :-)

~~Porphyria


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




From Edblanning at aol.com  Sun Feb 24 15:30:58 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 10:30:58 EST
Subject: James and Snape (was SHIP: Cupid's Snitch and Cupid's Quaffle)
Message-ID: <de.22e0ceca.29aa6132@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35669

In a message dated 22/02/02 02:06:13 GMT Standard Time, skelkins at attbi.com 
writes:


> Now personally, I don't think that any additional motivation for 
> hatred between these two men other than what has already been 
> provided by canon is in the least bit necessary.  It makes perfect 
> sense to me that they never liked each other to begin with, that the 
> potential lethality of the Prank was a matter of pure and simple 
> thoughtlessness on Sirius' part, that Dumbledore's reaction 
> infuriated and disillusioned young Severus, that his conviction that 
> Black really always *had* been by nature a murderer was confirmed in 
> his own mind by later events, and that what happened at the end of 
> PoA did absolutely nothing to make either of the two men like each 
> other any better.  Here I am in full agreement with Pippin and 
> Charis: what canon has already given us seems like *more* than enough 
> to account for their mutual antipathy.  To my way of thinking,
> anyway.  
> 

At the risk of being heretical......
The same argument can be made regarding Snape and James - and hence by 
extension, Harry.
James and Sirius were pretty much (totally?) identified with each other, so 
that the Prank embittered Snape just as much against James as against Sirius 
: more so in fact, since he had the gall to save his life.
Moreover Dumbledore likens the Snape/ James antipathy to that between Draco 
and Harry: in other words, it was *always* there, not something that arose 
later because  ( runs for cover before being flattened by canon fire from the 
good ship Lollipop) James gets the girl (and then gets her killed).
Then there's the addition of James preventing him from fulfilling the 
life-debt, by getting himself killed.
Then there's that dratted child with all the recognition, who keeps defeating 
Voldy as if it were a game, when he's been fighting him all those years 
secretly, with no recognition at all. I know I've said it all before, when I 
was very new and  before I knew better, but...well, I'm sorry, I'm afraid I 
still feel like that.

It struck me to wonder... suppose Draco ended up teaching at Hogwarts and 
Harry's son, who bore him a remarkable likeness, except for those dark eyes/ 
flaming red hair/ oversized incisors (whatever, I don't know what you 
shippers get up to) turned up. Just how do you think he would feel about  
said son-of-Harry? Any better than Snape does about Harry? somehow, I doubt 
it.

What I'd like to know is the basis of James' and Snape's animosity *at the 
beginning*. There could be another back story ( and I'll let you graft 
Lollipops on, if you like, but not as a prime motive)
I've wondered about various things. What if there was a long standing 
animosity between the Snapes and the Potters? Similar to that between the 
Weasleys and the Malfoys. We don't know anything about Harry's grandparents. 
What if James' father was an Auror and resposible for depriving Severus of 
his father?
Now *that* would be a reason for boning up on all those curses before you get 
to school.

>Now, if someone could please tell me why Severus has such poor 
>grooming habits.  I'd love to buy him a big bottle of shampoo and 
>make him an appointment for teeth cleaning with Hermione's parents.  
>Maybe I'd even make him something chocolate to cheer him up. ;)

Personally, I wonder if its sucking too many L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. that's given 
him the yellow teeth :-) !

Eloise, who realises that she's behaving very ungratefully after Tabouli was 
kind enough to give her a ride in the FLIRTIAC dinghy and salutes 
respectfully as the cannon balls whizz past her ears.



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




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 24 15:31:58 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 15:31:58 -0000
Subject: Fudge & Voldy's wand
In-Reply-To: <12e.cfe3cc9.29aa57bb@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a5b11e+ff8b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35670

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:
> 
> I also go on to suggest that around this time  Pettigrew passes on
> [to Fudge] Voldemort's wand which he has rescued (but without a 
>clear view as to where it end up for the next 13 years. Hey, what if 
>Fudge has it stored in the MoM, where young Crouch manages to gain 
>access to it via his imperio'd father?)

Nope.  Pettigrew obviously regained possession of Voldemort's wand 
BEFORE he ran into Bertha Jorkins. (We know she was killed by 
Voldemort's wand from the "Priori Incantatem" chapter.)  And Bertha 
was killed before Pettigrew and Voldemort "rescued" Barty Jr. from 
Barty Sr.

I'll stick with the easiest explanation.  Pettigrew was probably 
nearby when Voldemort killed James and Lily and tried to kill Harry.  
After Voldemort lost his body, Pettigrew scooped up Voldemort's wand 
and took off.  Peter hid Voldemort's wand someplace safe (either 
before or after running into Sirius-- doesn't matter much to me), but 
I do think he hid it, rather than keeping it with him, because he 
doesn't seem to have a wand with him in the Shreiking Shack.  Years 
later, after escaping from Sirius and Remus, he gets the wand back 
from its hiding place and scurries back to Voldemort as fast as 4 
little legs can take him.  No other accomplices necessary.




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Sun Feb 24 15:46:19 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 15:46:19 -0000
Subject: Snape's teeth (was Re: James and Snap)
In-Reply-To: <de.22e0ceca.29aa6132@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a5b1sb+s54l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35671

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:
> >Now, if someone could please tell me why Severus has such poor 
> >grooming habits.  I'd love to buy him a big bottle of shampoo and 
> >make him an appointment for teeth cleaning with Hermione's 
parents.  
> >Maybe I'd even make him something chocolate to cheer him up. ;)
> 
> Personally, I wonder if its sucking too many L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. 
that's given 
> him the yellow teeth :-) !

Maybe he's a chain smoker.  Not only would that account for the 
discolored teeth, but it would also explain why Snape is always in 
such a pissy mood.  See, Dumbledore has forbidden teachers to smoke 
around students, so the whole time Snape is teaching, he's jonesing 
for a cigarette. :-)

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Feb 24 16:18:48 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 16:18:48 -0000
Subject: Fudge is Way Evil and I have the acronyms to prove it
In-Reply-To: <12e.cfe3cc9.29aa57bb@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a5b3p8+fk7o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35672

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:
> In a message dated 24/02/02 03:06:22 GMT Standard Time, 
> bonnie at n... writes:
> :
> > 
> > The rest of the evidence against Fudge is more 
circumstantial, but I 
> > find it convincing nonetheless. Page 707.
> > 
> > "'The rest of us sleep less soundly in our beds, Cornelius, 
knowing 
> > that you have put Lord Voldemort's most dangerous 
supporters in the 
> > care of creatures who will join him the instant he asks them!' 
said 
> > Dumbledore."
> > 
> > Or in other words, putting the dementors in Azkaban was 
Fudge's idea. 
> > Hmmm. Is it possible that Fudge's affinity with the dementors 
is a by-
> > product of his true loyalties? Why put them there in the first 
place? 
> > That I don't know, but as a side note, it means they weren't 
there 
> > when Sirius Black was first put into Azkaban, nor were they 
there 
> > when the Aurors were catching DEs during and shortly after 
> > Voldemort's Reign of Terror. It also means that the 
dementors were 
> > preying mostly on Voldemort's supporters, formerly their 
allies. 
> > Creepy.
> 
> And the Lestranges won't thank him for that!


Fudge didn't get to be Minister until *after* Crouch had been 
discredited, his  son was found out and his wife and son had 
"died". Sirius, in GoF ch 27 p529," ..so Cornelius Fudge got the 
top job." There were already Dementors at the Pensieve trials, 
bringing people from Azkaban,  so they were already there when 
Fudge took over. I think Dumbledore's words are only to convince 
Fudge that he'll be held responsible, as the politician who "lost" 
Azkaban, if the Dementors defect. 

> 
> I also go on to suggest that around this time  Pettigrew passes 
on 
> Voldemort's wand which he has rescued (but without a clear 
view as to where 
> it end up for the next 13 years. Hey, what if Fudge has it stored 
in the MoM, 
> where young Crouch manages to gain access to it via his 
imperio'd father?)

No good. Voldemort's wand killed Bertha Jorkins and Frank 
Bryce *before* young Crouch was rescued. The best I can figure 
is that hysterical Sirius broke his own wand, Pettigrew destroyed 
or vanished his (as any murderer would dispose of the weapon), 
and that Voldemort's wand was found at Godric's Hollow by the 
Ministry and  later recovered by Pettigrew, who left a fake wand in 
its place. 

Pippin
F.U.D.G.E.F.A.C.T.O.R.
Fudge, Underestimating  Dementors' Gross Evil, Feared Acting, 
Choosing Temporizing Over Reform






From cindysphynx at home.com  Sun Feb 24 16:24:48 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 16:24:48 -0000
Subject: Trevor, Neville and Gran (WAS Life Debts, Ambushes, Toads)
In-Reply-To: <a56qn2+iom7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5b44h+1p4b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35673

Big Bang cruises easily through the placid waters, Jake Storm at the 
helm, MJollner manning the depth charges.  They tow a small rowboat, 
the moniker "ToadKeeper" neatly stenciled on the side.  The Captain 
reclines in her deck chair, her hat pulled low over her brow against 
the setting sun.

**Ka-BOOOOM!!!!**

"What was that?" cried MJollner, ducking the spray of salt water from 
the explosion.

"That was really close!"  Jake shouted, clutching the arms of his 
chair to steady himself, "Someone's firing at us, and it came from 
over there!"

The Captain rises from her perch, squinting toward the shore.  "Hard 
over, Jake. . . No, not that way.  *Toward* from the shore.  No, the 
other way!  Right, that's the ticket."

Big Bang slices through the water.  It slows as it reaches the still 
water, an eerie calm in the air.  The Captain reaches over the side 
and plucks a smooth, round object from the water.

"What is it, Captain?", asked MJollner.

"It's . . . it's a canonball, Sailor.  Whoever fired at ToadKeeper 
means business."  The Captain peered at the canonball, just able to 
make out a tiny inscription on the side.  "Serenity Now!" it read.

"Is it going to explode, Captain?  I think I have a right to know," 
MJollner demanded, her voice cracking.  "We *all* have a right to 
know!" 

The Captain surveyed her small but devoted crew, noting their young, 
sunburned faces and frightened eyes.  She smiled reassuringly.  "It's 
nothing to worry about, Sailor," she said evenly.  "It was just a 
Dud."

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

Judy Serenity fired:

>Anyway, Neville's uncle bought Neville the 
> toad after Neville got into Hogwarts; it says so in PS/SS. 

Yes, that is quite a powerful Scud missile Judy launched at the 
ToadKeeper theory.  After all, if Trevor was really purchased just 
weeks before Neville arrived at Hogwarts, it isn't likely that Trevor 
contains the souls of Neville's mother and father.  No, the 
ToadKeeper theory requires that Trevor the Toad have been around 13 
years ago when the Longbottoms were tortured.  So how does the 
ToadKeeper backstory sidestep Judy's clever citation to PS/SS?  

Very, very carefully, that's how.  In PS/SS, Neville says his family 
thought he "was all-Muggle for ages."  Great Uncle Algie seemed 
especially concerned with this, repeatedly trying to force some magic 
out of Neville.  This includes pushing Neville off of a pier, nearly 
drowning him.  Then, when Neville was 8, Uncle Algie dangled Neville 
out of a window, "accidently" letting go and bouncing Neville down 
the street.  "Gran was crying, she was so happy," Neville reports.  
Neville says that when he received his Hogwarts letter, "Great Uncle 
Algie was so pleased he bought me my toad."  

Is that bit of canon enough to sink the ToadKeeper once and for all?  

Not a chance.   Actually, it is rather helpful.  Why on earth is 
Uncle Algie so darned concerned with forcing some magic out of 
Neville, anyway?  Indeed, the whole story seemed over the top to me 
when I first read it.  Would a grown man deliberately and repeatedly 
endanger a small orphaned boy just to spook some magic out of him?  
What's wrong with Uncle Algie, anyway?  Nobody is *that* bent.  It 
just doesn't ring true, does it?

The reason Neville's version of the story doesn't ring true is 
because it is not the whole story.  The *real* reason Uncle Algie 
desperately tries to force magic out of Neville (and the reason Gran 
cries when it finally works) is because Neville is the Longbottoms' 
ToadKeeper.  If Neville is a Squib, all is lost; the Longbottoms will 
never get their souls out of Trevor.  So Uncle Algie is hanging onto 
Trevor, getting increasingly worried and desperate that Neville might 
not be magical and so may never be able to restore the Longbottom's 
souls.  Eventually, due to Uncle Algie's desperate efforts, Neville 
is revealed to be a wizard, but a weak one.  Uncle Algie continues to 
fret.  

Then Neville gets his Hogwarts letter, establishing once and for all 
that Neville is not only a wizard, but a powerful enough wizard to go 
to Hogwarts.  Uncle Algie, overcome with emotion, finally gives 
Trevor to Neville, explaining to Neville exactly how important Trevor 
is and why.  Weeks later, Neville, not wanting to reveal any of this 
to his Hogwarts friends, says that Uncle Algie recently "bought" him 
the toad, which is a bit of a white lie.  

Indeed, I like this twist because it helps explain why Neville is so 
secretive about his parents and the importance of Trevor.  Whether 
Neville gets his parents back depends entirely on whether Neville is 
strong enough to work whatever spell is needed to restore them.  
Neville might well fail at this.  He doesn't want his friends to know 
what he is facing.  He doesn't need the pressure, the questions, the 
pity.  Neville is brave enough to be in Gryffindor, so Neville will 
tackle this little problem on his own.  So he leaves the impression 
that Bent Uncle Algie tormented Neville and recently bought Trevor as 
a gift. 

As for Neville's grandmother, Judy wrote:

> Also, Neville lost Trevor at Platform 9.75 in PS/SS, and his Gran 
>was just exasperated -- if that toad had her child's soul, I think 
>she'd be a bit more worried.  

Yes, there is that peculiar scene in PS/SS where we first meet 
Neville:

"Gran, I've lost my toad again."
"Oh, Neville," he heard the old woman sigh.

Neville's grandmother.  Gran, another female character lacking not 
only a first name, but a last name.  Gran, who Harry describes 
as "formidable looking."  Gran, who Harry hopes never finds out he 
impersonated Neville on the Knight Bus.  Why is it that Formidable 
Gran is merely exasperated that Neville loses Trevor if Trevor really 
contains the souls of the Longbottoms?

Because Gran is not the Witch Harry makes her out to be, that's why.  
Gran does plenty of loving, kind things in canon.  She sends 
Neville's Hogsmeade form to McGonagall directly.  She sends Neville 
the Rememberall.  And she doesn't come down too hard on Neville for 
losing Trevor because she knows just how painful all of this is for 
poor Neville.  She is hard on Neville because he needs to step up and 
learn enough magic to restore his parents, not because she is mean.  
Gran ? the same Gran who cried when Neville received his Hogwarts 
letter --  has a heart, thank goodness.  

So, Judy's canonball did not sink ToadKeeper, although it certainly 
created quite a commotion on deck.  ToadKeeper, which is constructed 
of sturdy, reinforced Kevlar, survives.  Yet for some reason, people 
are not elbowing others aside for the opportunity to board 
ToadKeeper.  

So I issue a challenge.  Something Big must be going on with 
Neville.  Surely he isn't going to spend seven books as a timid, 
forgetful boy chasing after a useless toad.  What is Neville's 
backstory, then?  Any takers?

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

Big Bang listed in the waters, seemingly rudderless.  The Captain 
took a long, slow sip of her low-fat decaffinated mocha cappuccino, 
lazily wiping the foam from her upper lip.   "Jake," she called 
out, "take her out to sea."

"Captain, look!" MJollner cried, pointing to an empty plate sitting 
in Jake's chair.  "The Vienna sausages!  They're all gone."  

The Captain squinted across the open water and saw Jake climbing 
aboard the Good Ship George.  Its youthful, scantily-clad crew 
wrapped him in a velveteen smoking jacket, pressing a pipe into his 
chilled hands.  Jake gave the Captain a smart salute as he sank into 
a Barcolounger that appeared from a distance to be made of rich 
Corinthian leather.  

"Jake's gone! What are we doing to do, Captain?"  MJollner asked, 
looking downcast.

"There's only one thing we can do, Sailor,"  the Captain 
replied.  "Open another can of Vienna sausages."

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

--Cindy (who is not about to admit how close she came to raising the 
white flag over ToadKeeper)





From Ali at zymurgy.org  Sun Feb 24 17:24:46 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 17:24:46 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore - father figure or manipulator?
Message-ID: <a5b7kv+n3c4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35674

Mahoney wrote:

At any rate. I suppose that of the living I feel the most pity for 
Harry. The past continues to weigh on him, he has recent traumas to 
deal with, and can only look forward to more danger, disruption, 
uncertainty, suffering. He's haunted, hunted, can't catch a break. 
Poor kid.




Dicentra wrote:

 10. Ron then asks, "D'you think he meant you to do
> it? Sending you
> your father's cloak and everything?" Harry responds
> (after Hermione's
> obligatory horrified reaction), "I think he sort of
> wanted to give me
> a chance. I think he knows more or less everything
> that goes on here,
> you know. I reckon he had a pretty good idea we were
> going to try, and
> instead of stopping us, he just taught us enough to
> help. I don't
> think it was an accident he let me find out how the
> mirror worked.
> It's almost like he thought I had the right to face
> Voldemort if I
> could...." I don't think this is Harry?s personal
> interpretation. I
> think this is JKR's message to the reader.
> 
> I wondered what would possess Dumbledore to not only
> allow, but to
> arrange for, a first-year student to confront
> Voldemort 
  

I can't help wondering about Dumbledore. No, I don't think he's evil. 
It makes no sense to live for 150 years on the "Good" side, wait 13 
years after an evil wizard has seemingly disappeared, see him on the 
rise again before showing your true colours. On the other hand I do 
wonder about his "treatment" of Harry. 

Voldemort tells us that Harry's future fell to Dumbledore after his 
parents' death (GoF). He sent him to the Dursleys, to save him from 
his own fame (possibly to keep him from safe from remaining Death 
Eaters - although this hasn't yet been spelt out). Yet in doing so he 
allowed Harry to be quite severely abused. I believe that Dumbledore 
continued to keep an eye on Harry (it does seem fairly likely that 
Mrs Figg was living near Harry for a purpose - doesn't it?). In which 
case why on earth couldn't he do something to make Harry's life more 
bearable? 

Dumbledore tells Harry that it's choices rather than abilities that 
make a [wizard} yet, he seems to let Harry make choices without 
telling him half the information. Dumbledore might be acting the 
protective father-figure that Harry never had. Equally, he could be 
manipulating Harry to fulfil his destiny. This confuses me then ? is 
Harry's role/ fate already predetermined or is it his choices ? based 
on only the snippets of information that Dumbledore (& co ? as I 
reckon that at least Hagrid knows more than he's told Harry). 

Dumbledore seems to have watched as Harry was abused at the 
Dursley's, isolated in CoS and again mistrusted in GoF. This might be 
character-forming for Harry, but  surely Dumbledore could have eased 
his right of passage?

Ali

(Still dreading the fate of Harry in Book 7 ? why is JKR so set that 
there won't be another HP story?)







From fiatincantatum at attbi.com  Sun Feb 24 18:16:27 2002
From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 13:16:27 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Marauders learning to be animagi....
In-Reply-To: <002d01c1bc43$d79b6280$3e9abc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>
Message-ID: <3C78E7AB.7878.13405A13@localhost>

No: HPFGUIDX 35675

On 23 Feb 2002 at 8:23, Felicia Rickmann wrote:

> Looking at the animagus throughout the HP canon, it strikes me that the
> actual creature an animagus turns into always seems to reflect something of
> their character.
> 
> Dreadful Rita Skeeter becomes a creepy crawly beetle (GoF),  Pettigrew a
> lowly rat and James Potter a noble stag (PoA).   So I  would think that
> while the actual process of becoming an animal is
>  proably a magical skill that could be learned, the magic takes the
> personality traits of an animagus into account and governs to a large extent
> what the person turns into.  

er ... do we want to explore why McGonagall turns into a cat then?  Cats being 
the insatiably curious, hedonsitic little beasts that they are?  Maybe there's 
more to her than meets the eye?

Fiat who has seven cats and, since she had them all neutered at an early age, 
sincerely hopes that none of them are Animagi,  ... what with paybacks being 
rather unpleasant and all 

  
-- 
Fiat Incantatum 
fiatincantatum at attbi.com

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




From jferer at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 24 18:39:36 2002
From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 18:39:36 -0000
Subject: Fudge is Way Evil and I have the acronyms to prove it
In-Reply-To: <a5b3p8+fk7o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5bc18+r4up@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35676

Pippin:"F.U.D.G.E.F.A.C.T.O.R.
Fudge, Underestimating Dementors' Gross Evil, Feared Acting, Choosing 
Temporizing Over Reform"

Brilliant, Pippin.

Pippin:"No good. Voldemort's wand killed Bertha Jorkins and Frank 
Bryce *before* young Crouch was rescued. The best I can figure 
is that hysterical Sirius broke his own wand, Pettigrew destroyed 
or vanished his (as any murderer would dispose of the weapon), 
and that Voldemort's wand was found at Godric's Hollow by the 
Ministry and  later recovered by Pettigrew, who left a fake wand in 
its place."

Guys, you need evidence for this stuff. Sometimes we just gotta accept 
that we don't know. All we know is that Voldemort has his own wand, 
because it connected with Harry's; the mystery is how did he keep it 
or get it back when he had lost his body?  Pettigrew would presumably 
be unable to carry his away when he transformed into a rat after 
framing Sirius.  The problem with that idea is that somehow Voldemort 
kept his or got it back. 

What happened to Sirius's wand is easy. If you arrest somebody for 
killing 13 people with one curse, you're not going to let him keep his 
wand. It's probably sitting in a wizarding crime museum or in the 
evidence room at the Division of Magical Law Enforcement.

Cornelius Fudge could have given lessons in crisis management to 
Neville Chamberlain.  He's just the kind of guy who was running that 
village on the Cape when Jaws the shark came around.





From jferer at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 24 18:59:05 2002
From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 18:59:05 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore - father figure or manipulator?
In-Reply-To: <a5b7kv+n3c4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5bd5q+nebm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35677

Alhewison:"Yet in doing so he [Dumbledore] allowed Harry to be quite 
severely abused."

Agreed. Could Dumbledore have foreseen that Harry got his will to 
survive and grit from his experiences with the Dursleys? Maybe. I 
wonder how Harry would have responded to the challenges he's faced if 
he'd grown up in a safe, welcoming, middle class home that he could go 
back to anytime. I don't think Harry would be as tough as he is 
without it.

Alhewison:"Dumbledore tells Harry that it's choices rather than 
abilities that make a [wizard} yet, he seems to let Harry make choices 
without telling him half the information."

It's Harry's moral choices that matter, not his decisions. Harry's 
decisions all come from his moral compass, not the data he does or 
doesn't have.

Al:"Dumbledore might be acting the protective father-figure that Harry 
never had. Equally, he could be manipulating Harry to fulfil his 
destiny."

Here's the uncomfortable fact: Dumbledore has a higher duty than just 
to Harry. He has to save the world, maybe ours as well as the 
wizard's. What if Dumbledore knows Harry must be sacrificed to save 
everyone else? These aren't easy decisions. [Just ask a military 
commander or, for that matter, a fire chief.] Perhaps this is the 
explanation for the "look of triumph" we've discussed so much.

Al:"This confuses me then ? is Harry's role/ fate already p




From hermione_ew at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 24 19:15:17 2002
From: hermione_ew at yahoo.com (hermione_ew)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:15:17 -0000
Subject: Fudge is Way Evil and I have the acronyms to prove it
In-Reply-To: <a59l9g+182n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5be45+86i0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35678

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" <bonnie at n...> 
wrote:
> OK. I'm glad to see that there are those out there who, like 
myself, 
> suspect that there's more to our lime-green-bowler-wearing Minister 
> of Magic than meets the eye. Thanks to Kelly Hurt for 
> F.I.E.O.N.G.O.O.D.N.E.S.S., a respectable acronym if ever there was 
> one. (Check a couple three posts ahead of this one.) But I've got 
my 
> own to propose, along with proof that the acronyms are true. (Much 
of 
> which has already been proposed, but there's nothing like putting 
it 
> all together, ne?)
> 
> ::Stands at front of room. Clears throat.::
> 
> When last we left Fudge, he appeared to be playing the consummate 
> ladder-climbing politician, worried more about the safety of his 
> career than that of the people he is supposed to serve. And this 
> isn't necessarily an incorrect conclusion, given that Dumbledore 
> himself accuses Fudge of that very thing. But hidden in the text--
as 
> usual--are clues to Fudge's true nature. Clues that we would all 
> overlook if we weren't so excruciatingly bored while waiting for 
Book 
> 5 that we have to pore over every sentence looking for Something, 
> Anything, to liven things up. 
> 
> So here it is:
> F.I.D.E.D.I.G.N.O.: Fudge Is Definitely an Evil-Doer--It's 
Generally 
> Not Obvious
> (pronounced 'fee-day-DEEG-no,' Spanish for trustworthy or reliable. 

I happen to agree completely with the acronym.  His outward actions 
are not supported by obvious motives (except maybe in the crouch 
situation, but even there he doesn't express his true motive, it is 
speculated by McGonagll).  The portrayal of Fudge as a short, 
somewhat blustering man is similar to Pettigrew.  It is stated in 
PS/SS that Fudge pelts Dubledore with  owls everymorning, asking for 
advice.  Pettigrew was somewhat the same way.  Always looking for 
someone stronger to protect him (aka James, Sirius, Remus), while at 
the same them using them to cover his true motive, working for 
voldemort.  I think it is the same sort of sinereo with Fudge.  
Although he is minister, he is feigning freindship with Dumbledore.  
This allows Voldemort with a "man on the inside".  Also, if Fudge was 
working for Voldemort, he would have wanted to arrest Hagrid in CoS 
even though he knew that he was innocent.  It divert all of the 
suspicion, allowing Riddle to destroy muggle-borns and Harry.  

The friendship with the malfoys can't be coincidence either.  They 
are cleared by the council, but despite their record and reputation, 
Fudge still befriends them.  This would be the same for Avery, the 
executioner in PoA.  There seems to be a good deal of Death eaters 
associated with the ministry and Hogwarts.  If Fudge really wanted to 
keep Voldemort from gaining power again, he would not have given 
these people positions in the ministry.  

Fudge is either extremely stupid, or he is evil.

I definately opt for the F.I.E.  Fudge Is Evil concept.

Hannah
(Hermione's muggle twin)





From andrew_macian at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 24 20:47:48 2002
From: andrew_macian at yahoo.com (Andrew MacIan)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:47:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Rowling as Conan Doyle {WAS: Re: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore - father figure or manipulator?}
In-Reply-To: <a5b7kv+n3c4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020224204748.42177.qmail@web9507.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35679

Greetings from Andrew!

A short comment from another fandom....
--- alhewison <Ali at zymurgy.org> wrote:
{snip}
> Ali
> 
> (Still dreading the fate of Harry in Book 7  why is
> JKR so set that 
> there won't be another HP story?)

Do you recall how hard Conan Doyle tried to kill off
Holmes, after CD became very unhappy about the Holmes
canon being his only popular work?  I suspect that
Rowling is trying to avoid the same fate, but I also
think it is far too late for her to get 'out from
under' HP and establish another character.  Perhaps
not; time will, after all, provide us with actual
evidence.

I do suspect that Rowling has observed the effect that
Holmes had on Conan Doyle; after all, other than
Challenger and the 'White Company', how much of CD's
other writing springs to mind when his name is
mentioned?

Cheers,

Drieux

=====
ICQ # 76184391

'Each game of chess means there's one less
      Variation left to be played;
 Each day got through means one or two less
      Mistakes remain to be made.'
      --'Chess' by Sir Tim Rice

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com



From Aberforths_Goat at Yahoo.com  Sun Feb 24 20:48:23 2002
From: Aberforths_Goat at Yahoo.com (Aberforth's Goat)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:48:23 +0100
Subject: Dudley the Magnificent? (Was Dumbledore - father figure or manipulator)
References: <a5bd5q+nebm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <006a01c1bd74$9ae94780$0200a8c0@shasta>

No: HPFGUIDX 35680

Jim agreed with Alhewison in wondering,

>Could Dumbledore have foreseen that Harry got his will to
>survive and grit from his experiences with the Dursleys? Maybe.
I
>wonder how Harry would have responded to the challenges he's
faced if
> he'd grown up in a safe, welcoming, middle class home that he
could go
> back to anytime. I don't think Harry would be as tough as he is
> without it.

Ahhh - one of my favorite topics! If we're going to make sense of
this, I think we need to factor in that interesting "ancient
magic" passage in GoF, where Voldy mopes about the difficulties
involved in deep sixing Harry:

"For he has been better protected than I think even he knows,
protected in ways devised by Dumbledore long ago, when it fell to
him to arrange the boy's future.  Dumbledore invoked an ancient
magic, to ensure the boy's protection as long as he is in his
relations' care.  Not even I can touch him there"

OK, here's a theory (I'm sure it's been around the block a few
times already, thought I can't recall seeing it):

(1) Dudley is a wizard.
(2) There is an ancient spell that allows the inviolable
protection of a wizard if another wizard utterly renounces the
use of his own capacity for magic.
(2a) This renunciation can be made by the wizards parents as
well.
(2b) This renunciation may also inhibit or postpone the
renouncer's development of an aptitude for magic.
(3) The Dursleys happily agreed to this bargain with Dumbledore,
since they figured that having a magically talented son would
rank right up there with stock market crashes and gypsy camps in
the back yard.

I think this scenario works pretty well, although I'll admit that
2a and 2b - particularly 2a - seem problematic.

Baaaaaa!

Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray)
_______________________

"Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that
may not have been bravery...."



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




From Edblanning at aol.com  Sun Feb 24 20:54:53 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 15:54:53 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fudge is Way Evil and I have the acronyms to prove it
Message-ID: <16e.957ee6a.29aaad1d@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35681

Pippin comments on my comments on Dicentra's post.
This got a bit unclear as to who said what, so I'll clarify.

Dicentra:
> > > The rest of the evidence against Fudge is more 
> circumstantial, but I 
> > > find it convincing nonetheless. Page 707.
> > > 
> > > "'The rest of us sleep less soundly in our beds, Cornelius, 
> knowing 
> > > that you have put Lord Voldemort's most dangerous 
> supporters in the 
> > > care of creatures who will join him the instant he asks them!' 
> said 
> > > Dumbledore."
> > > 
> > > Or in other words, putting the dementors in Azkaban was 
> Fudge's idea. 
> > > Hmmm. Is it possible that Fudge's affinity with the dementors 
> is a by-
> > > product of his true loyalties? Why put them there in the first 
> place? 
> > > That I don't know, but as a side note, it means they weren't 
> there 
> > > when Sirius Black was first put into Azkaban, nor were they 
> there 
> > > when the Aurors were catching DEs during and shortly after 
> > > Voldemort's Reign of Terror. It also means that the 
> dementors were 
> > > preying mostly on Voldemort's supporters, formerly their 
> allies. 
> > > Creepy.> 

Me (Eloise)

> > And the Lestranges won't thank him for that!

Pippin:

> 
> Fudge didn't get to be Minister until *after* Crouch had been 
> discredited, his  son was found out and his wife and son had 
> "died". Sirius, in GoF ch 27 p529," ..so Cornelius Fudge got the 
> top job." There were already Dementors at the Pensieve trials, 
> bringing people from Azkaban,  so they were already there when 
> Fudge took over. I think Dumbledore's words are only to convince 
> Fudge that he'll be held responsible, as the politician who "lost" 
> Azkaban, if the Dementors defect. 

Quite right, Pippin. Didn't check back on this.

Me:
> > 
> > I also go on to suggest that around this time  Pettigrew passes 
> on 
> > Voldemort's wand which he has rescued (but without a clear 
> view as to where 
> > it end up for the next 13 years. Hey, what if Fudge has it stored 
> in the MoM, 
> > where young Crouch manages to gain access to it via his 
> imperio'd father?)

Pippin
> 
> No good. Voldemort's wand killed Bertha Jorkins and Frank 
> Bryce *before* young Crouch was rescued. The best I can figure 
> is that hysterical Sirius broke his own wand, Pettigrew destroyed 
> or vanished his (as any murderer would dispose of the weapon), 
> and that Voldemort's wand was found at Godric's Hollow by the 
> Ministry and  later recovered by Pettigrew, who left a fake wand in 
> its place. 
> 
> Pippin
> F.U.D.

Right again, Pippin. I'll go back to my earlier suggestion, that Voldy's has 
been in Lucius Malfoy's collection of Voldemort memorabilia,or otherwise 
concealed.
But still think its very suspicious that Fudge was one of the first on the 
scene, and that hair brained scheme to frame Sirius whilst disappearing 
actually worked. But *why* would Sirius, even if hysterical, break his own 
wand? That one doesn't work for me. And how did Pettigrew rescue Voldy's wand 
from the ministry? Oh, as a rat, I suppose. Mmm....I need to think about that.

I will return then to my original list of reasons for suspecting Fudge:

>We assume that animagi's wands transform with them, along with their 
clothes, >don't we?
>But Pettigrew shows no sign of being armed in the Shreiking Shack and in the 
>graveyard, uses Voldemort's wand.
>No wand is reported as found at the scene of the muggle massacre, although 
robes >and Pettigrew's finger are.
>Voldemort is disembodied and cannot carry a wand.
>So there are potentially, between the events surrounding the Potters' deaths 
and >GoF, *two* missing wands, one of which doesn't reappear.
>Who is one of the first on the scene after Pettigrew's disappearing trick? 
Young >Cornelius Fudge.
>Karkaroff tells us in the Pensieve scene that Rookwood had a *network* of 
well->placed wizards , both in the MOM and out. The only one of these we know 
of so far >(IIRC) is Bagman. 
>As MOM, Fudge takes a *very* hands-on approach to finding Harry and 
capturing >Sirius.
>He is far too friendly with Lucius Malfoy
>The secret chamber under the Malfoy's living room doesn't appear to have 
been >searched, despite Harry and Ron finding out about it in CoS and Ron's >
determination to tell his father.
>He has an elevated view of the superiority of pure-blood and proper 
wizarding pride >which is uncomfortably close to Voldemort's doctrine.
>>Cindy points out,
>>Avery, however, gets out quickly -- as soon as Fudge 
>>takes over.

This is the evidence I cited. I don't want to repeat the entire post (35393) 
in which I spelled out the implications, but it was from these facts that I 
deduced my theory.

Jferer:

>Guys, you need evidence for this stuff. Sometimes we just gotta accept 
>that we don't know.

We've got plenty of evidence . It's just that it's kind 
of....well...circumstantial :-)

Look, loads of the stuff we churn out is based on the flimsiest of evidence, 
isn't it? Some of it is, dare I say, completely non-canonical.
But as someone (Dicentra?) said, we need something to do until OoTP comes 
out, and Fudge, Bagman et al are proved to be blameless citizens, Severus 
flies off to Transylvania, Voldemort reveals his lifelong passion for 
ballroom dancing,  etc, etc, etc. If we're wrong, we're wrong. Fine. We can 
just seek out Alastor Moody and drown our sorrows over a few butterbeers, 
whilst discussing all those ones that got away.

Dicentra, I want that cape and pipe back. Now. I can't do dramatic swirls 
with only a deerstalker.

Eloise.









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




From cindysphynx at home.com  Sun Feb 24 20:55:43 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:55:43 -0000
Subject: Fudge is Way Evil and I have the acronyms to prove it
In-Reply-To: <a59l9g+182n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5bk0f+qkeu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35682

Dicentra wrote (about Evil Fudge):

>But hidden in the text--as 
> usual--are clues to Fudge's true nature. Clues that we would all 
> overlook if we weren't so excruciatingly bored while waiting for 
Book 
> 5 that we have to pore over every sentence looking for Something, 
> Anything, to liven things up. 
> 

Let me just say that I'm am buying the whole thing.  Fudge as Supreme 
Evil Death Eater.  I love it!

I must admit I hadn't noticed how Fudge keeps that twisted smile just 
a little too long.  But Elkins' treatment of Lupin's twisted smile 
has confused me.  How do we know that Fudge doesn't just have Edge?

Dicentra again:

>While Harry sleeps, Cornelius Fudge arrives at 
> Hogwarts to question Crouch himself. He brings along a dementor "as 
> protection." 
 
Protection, huh?  You *bet* Fudge needed protection, big time.  
Crouch Jr. *knows* that Fudge is a DE.  Fudge is the worst kind of 
DE, too -- one of those cowardly DEs who got off scot free.  The 
first thing Crouch Jr. is going to do when he gets over his 
Veritaserum hangover is finger every secret DE there is, starting 
with the Minister of Magic himself.  Crouch Jr.'s failure to make a 
clean escape left Fudge with no other choice -- he *has* to get rid 
of Crouch Jr. before Crouch Jr. opens his big mouth.  Thank goodness 
there was a dementor handy.

Oh, that Crouch Jr. *really* has it in for Fudge, too.  All those 
times Fudge sauntered past Crouch Jr.'s cell in Azkaban, inspecting 
the place, chatting up the dementors, doing *nothing* for the DEs 
languishing there.  All those times Fudge came to dinner at Crouch 
Sr.'s house, hogging all of the appetizers, sucking down those yummy 
jumbo shrimp, while Crouch Jr. sat under his invisibility cloak, his 
stomach growling?  All that time in the top box, Crouch Jr. flexing 
his fingers, itching to leap on Fudge and shove a large pretzel hunk 
down Fudge's throat.  Oh, yeah.  Fudge is *going down* if Crouch Jr. 
can manage it, so Fudge wisely takes out Crouch Jr. first.

Not only that, Voldemort refers to Fudge in the graveyard.  Fudge 
didn't apparate to the graveyard when the Dark Mark burned on his 
arm.  Voldemort doesn't know Fudge is on the Hogwarts grounds and so 
can't apparate to the graveyard.  So Voldemort thinks that Fudge 
is "too cowardly to return . . . he will pay."  ::shiver::

Need more proof?

::Cindy twirls around in her long skirt, which somehow just isn't as 
menacing as twirling a cape::

Check out GoF, "Veritaserium", when Harry arrives back on the 
Hogwarts grounds.  Fudge is right there.  Expressing horror at 
Cedric's death.  Trying to pry Cedric's cold dead arm out of Harry's 
hand.  Telling Dumbledore to go speak with the Diggorys right away.  
Why does Fudge do these strange things?

Because Fudge is E-V-I-L, that's why.  If anyone ought to go speak to 
the Diggorys, it ought to be Fudge.  Amos Diggory *works* for Fudge, 
for heaven's sake.  Fudge is the Minister of Magic and is a 
reasonable choice to comfort the Diggorys, which would leave 
Dumbledore free to take care of one of his students, Harry.  But no.  
Fudge *wants* Dumbledore distracted so that Crouch Jr. can make off 
with Harry.  Fudge was in on the whole Voldemort re-birthing plot 
from the get-go, you see.  Fudge was just dying to apparate to the 
graveyard when the Dark Mark burned on his arm, but he couldn't 
because he had to stay on the Hogwarts grounds.

Hmmm.  Now you've got me wondering where Fudge was while the DEs were 
romping around under the Dark Mark at the QWC.

Dicentra again:

> If it's true that Fudge is an extremely covert supporter of 
> Voldemort, it could also explain in part how Sirius Black got 
framed 
> and how his reputation as a mad murderer was spread. 

Sure, why not?  I like the bit about Fudge tampering with the 
evidence of Sirius' wand, with a slight modification.  Fudge *and* 
Avery tampered with Sirius' wand.  This makes sense, as Fudge was the 
first on the scene back then.  Elkins and I already have an agreement 
that Fudge pardoned Avery later, perhaps to encourage Avery to keep 
quiet about Fudge's own role in the Sirius Frame-Up.

Dicentra again:

> Furthermore, and this is pushing it, I know, but Fudge's fatherly 
> manner toward Harry earlier in PoA, when he met him at the Leaky 
> Cauldron, might simply be a way to make sure nothing happened to 
> Harry before Voldemort could finish him off himself. 

Oh, Fudge's fatherly manner isn't a problem at all.  Voldemort 
*needs* Harry for the re-birthing.  And Fudge, like Pettigrew, isn't 
going to tangle with Harry until he is sure that Voldemort is back.  

Wow!  So many Evil DEs lurking, waiting for a chance to kill Harry.  
Pettigrew.  Fudge.  Bagman.  Avery.  Malfoy.  I hope there aren't any 
more.
;-)

Cindy (who thinks Harry had definitely better get to work on that 
Shield Charm)




From pollux46 at hotmail.com  Sun Feb 24 20:58:39 2002
From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:58:39 -0000
Subject: SHIP: E.L.G.I.N.M.A.R.B.L.E.S.
Message-ID: <a5bk60+q0fv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35683


Doom. Doom, doom, doom.


DOOOOOOM.


I think you get the point.


For a week I've been scanning posts hoping against hope that my 
thoughtless slip would go unnoticed, that nobody would be intrigued 
enough to ask for further information, that I could forget and ignore 
along with a charitably incurious world. You see, no sooner did I 
send that dratted post out than I realized, dread settling in my 
stomach, what exactly I had done: set myself up for exhibiting to the 
rest of the world the foolish lovey?dovey, ooey?gooey workings of my 
mind. And this I certainly did not want to do; I mean, it would be 
humiliating, see? But I was beginning to think I might actually be 
getting away with it. I allowed relief to sweep over me, to lift me 
up lightly on it's breezy wings an d let me drift carelessly on a 
warm and cozy comfort--cloud watching as my worries swept by into the 
distance. . . 


And then, whoosh! , a jet sky zooms past at top speed drenching me 
from head to toe and reducing my fluffy cloud to a very wet shower 
that, gushing down around me, sweeps me down into the cold, dark sea 
of disillusion. As I splutter for breath a small speck quickly 
disappearing into the horizon turns to yell out at me: "Do tell us 
about E.L.G.I.N.M.A.R.B.L.E.S., Charis!"


DOOOOOOOM!


Right, I will, I promise. I said I would and I will. I am a woman of 
my word. But you will allow me to procrastinate just a teeny?weeny 
bit longer, won't you? Denial is a hard place to get out of.


Elkins wrote: 

>Are they 
>anything to do with my *own* marbles? Because I think that I've 
>misplaced those somewhere...
                     


Oh, I'm really sorry, but I just had to laugh! No, it's not your 
fault, this is high?reference knowledge. I seem to have a hazy 
recollection of your mentioning somewhere that you are American, 
right? Well, you're definitely not a Greek, I can tell that! I said 
El* g*in! With a *g *! And, no, I'm not accusing you of missing any 
parts necessary for the effective functioning of your mental 
capacities.


George Elgin was a Scottish lord. The marbles named after him were 
indeed lost, not however so much by him as because of him. At the 
beginning of the 19th century they were stolen --errr * saved* I mean 
of course . . . -- by Lord Elgin from the Parthenon, mainly because 
he figured his very own ancient temple in his back garden would 
really be something to make the neighbors go green. The Elgin Marbles 
are currently on exhibition in the British Museum in London though 
negotiations have occurred between the Greek and British governments 
to return them to their rightful home.


However E.L.G.I.N.M.A.R.B.L.E.S. the theory has nothing to do with 
any marbles whatsoever, whether sculptured by Phidias or lost by 
members of this list. That's just the way the words worked out for 
me, really.


So, that would bring us to. . . 


Charis shifts uncomfortably in her chair and starts nervously 
twiddling her thumbs. . . She hums complacently to herself and ?-
trying her best to avoid looking at the computer --turns to the 
window. "Oh, look", she cries apparently thrilled to bits at the 
information she has to disclose, "there's two birds nibbling from our 
bird feeder outside! How cute!" Pause. "You know it's no wonder 
they're hungry. We've had some awful weather indeed over here lately 
let me tell you! A regular storm last night! Rain pouring, lightning 
flashing, thunder bawling! I don't mind telling you I was quite 
alarmed. . ." Her voice falters and trails off into silence. Fool, 
she mutters to herself, you love thunderstorms.


Right. I will. I will stop putting off the inevitable and especially 
stop putting on a whole show and dance of the DOOOOM I've been flung 
into and maybe write something that will interest somebody other than 
myself. The truth is after all that I kinda do want to send out this 
theory, if only to see how it will be received or if indeed it will 
get any response at all. So, here goes. . .


Let's assume for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that Lily 
had two girlfriends. I think she ought to have had two girlfriends. 
IMO she's the kind of girl that would have two girlfriends. Why? 
Well, for starters, she's * nice*. And nice girls aren't loners. Nice 
girls have girlfriends. They have girlfriends because then they can 
have midnight feasts on chocolate with those girlfriends in their 
dormitories gigglingly trying to decide who the cutest boy in class 
is. And so that they can exchange dress robes and hair clips with 
them. And so that they can sit on the bank of the lake with them 
lounging in the sun and dreaming all the thrilling things that might 
just happen if they do everything right in their lives. And (mainly) 
so that they can walk in packs with them when young wizards with 
black, tousled hair of whatever generation want to ask them out. Oh, 
I'm not saying Lily is a good little girl. Oh,no! I think Lily does 
have some wicked streak in her somewhere. But Canon clearly states 
that Lily is nice and I'm prepared to take Canon at it's word, even 
if it is voiced through emotional Hagrid. Now purely to indulge in my 
rather warped sense of humor and in order to avoid other awkward 
names (such as, oh, I don't know, Florence?) and obviously not in 
earnest, I think that I'll name these two girlfriends Dimorphotheca 
and Campanula. (Explanation of this not?too?funny joke available at 
request in the unlikely <sniger!> event of somebody not understanding 
it)


Let's also assume solely and purely for argument's sake again that 
James isn't the only one of the Marauders to have a serious interest 
in a girl. Say that both Sirius and Remus do also. And say that the 
objects of their affections happen to be Dimorphotheca and Campanula 
(if anyone's feeling slightly nauseated right now they're welcome to 
escape from this post immediately, no hard feelings). This is a bit 
sappy, I know. And perhaps I ought to accept, as most members of this 
list seem to have done, that Remus and Sirius haven't in fact met 
anyone yet and maybe never will. But I'm still an optimistic 19 and 
refuse to believe that I will not find True Love (excuse all the 
slushy words starting with capitals please) by the time I'm 36 even 
if I am unlucky enough to be bitten by a werewolf or thrown into a 
prison guarded by soul?sucking fiends. (Incidently, Peter doesn't get 
a girlfriend just out of spite and because, well, let's face it, 
who'd have him?)


So after making all those assumptions where are we led to? Well, I at 
least am led firstly to C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R., but I won't get 
into that right now. Instead I'm going to make one more assumption 
and ask where does C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. lead us to after 
they've all finished Hogwarts and after Voldemort's fall? Well, I'd 
say to a very miserable Dimorphotheca for starters. Think about it. 
All in one night she looses two of her best friends allegedly because 
the man she loves (Ahhh!) ratted on them, only to be informed a few 
hours later that he's being hauled off to prison laughing his head 
off in true lunatic fashion for murdering another good friend plus 12 
innocent bystanders. DOOOM! (I think I'm addicted). So what does she 
do? Ah?ha! You see the thing is Dimorphotheca is Muggle?born. And the 
wizarding world has given her nothing but grief: First terror of a 
deranged, AK?happy Dark Maniac and now * this*. So, she goes home.


Oh no! A great gulp of salty water distastefully forces Charis to 
realize she's been digressing. Drifting in fact. Insidious 
undercurrents of the imagination are drawing her nearer and nearer to 
the treacherous sees of fanfic. "No, no!" she wails balefully. "This 
is fanspec. Really! I promise!" However no help appears and the 
overwhelming waves only grow larger as she goes over her dubious 
theory in her head on more time. "Must?save ? 
E.L.G.I.N.M.A.R.B.L.E.S." she gasps struggling desperately. And then ?
it's a miracle! (Well, actually more of a pathetic attempt at 
deception then a miracle)?salvation appears! A raft! A rickety, old, 
almost collapsing but clearly still floating raft: We need a new take 
on Muggles.


You see, all we've really got until now is Harry's view of the 
Dursleys and they're rather unsatisfactory representatives to say the 
least. Normally this wouldn't bother me however. I'd just consider 
the Petunia and Vernon farces of the cruel step?parents and Dudley a 
farce of the spoiled brat, have a good laugh at them and leave it at 
that. But a lot of emphasis has been put, especially in GoF, on the 
importance of not discriminating against Muggle--borns, so the way I 
see it the pending question is, what about Muggles themselves? If all 
Muggles are nasty, rude and incompetent like the Dursleys and if all 
wizards consider themselves congenitally superior, as even the 
Weasleys seem to do, then there seems to be in fact some basis for 
the elitist views of Draco and his inspirers. And what more wonderful 
way to fix this than the introduction of a witch who actually *chose 
* to return to Muggledom?


But enough about Sirius and his sweet Dimorphotheca. What about 
Campanula? Oh, it's a tragic story. . . A true heart renter. You see 
she's desperately in love with Remus and he's desperately in love 
with her (hey, this is my post after all!) but like with all true 
love stories the ending is not happy. (sniff!) You see, he's a 
werewolf and well, werewolves do not have love affairs in the 
wizarding world. It's just not * done*. How can they? Werewolfs don't 
have feelings do they? No, unfortunately the magical society and all 
it's traditions and prejudices are against these star?crossed lovers. 
Their love is in fact clandestine, something that Sirius's attraction 
for any girl could never be IMO because well, Sirius is Sirius. He 
wouldn't let a small thing like social acceptance come in the way of 
anything he wants. It's the characterization thing Tabouli pointed 
out. But poor Remus, you see, is Remus. And that's against him from 
the start. He's Remus?can't?stay?at?the?school?any?longer?because?
parents?will?get?upset?and?I?see?their?point. He's Remus the 
Ceaselessly Guilty About What He Is. He's Remus. Oh, sure he gives in 
initially. He's Remus (you did catch that didn't you?) after all. He 
can't resist nocturnal rampagings with his friends and he can't 
resist the charms of a pretty girl either. He asks her out. They have 
a good time. Maybe they even visit the greenhouse once in a while. 
Wherever they go however Guilt is inevitably at their heals. And, as 
a result, he loathes himself. He's dragged this poor, unsuspecting 
girl down into the murky swamps of social rejection against which he 
is destined to struggle. How can he live with himself? At first of 
course he's too ecstatic with joy to pay attention, but after a while 
that nagging feeling that claws round his heart whenever he sees her, 
that understanding she can never truly be his begins to disturb him 
with more and more intensity till at last ?-say about a month before 
the Potter's death?-- he has to listen to it. And he tells her they 
must break up.


She of course objects. What does it matter that he's a werewolf? She 
doesn't care. She'd half guessed anyway. She loves him regardless. 
But, no, he remains adamant. He will hear no pleas. He turns almost * 
cold* in his manner. Cool. Lazy? As he leaves the room he glances 
over his shoulder and smiles twistedly at her.


Poor Remus. He's done the right thing, but he can't be happy about 
it. To the contrary, he's miserable. Lonely. Regretful. And we all 
know what Remus does when he's miserable, lonely or regretful, don't 
we? Oh, yes. He goes all Edgy. In this case in fact he goes Edgier 
than he's ever been before or since. He's teetering. Barely 
balancing. And to cut a long story short Sirius notices and thinks 
his friend has actually gone off the Edge, suspects him of 
deatheating and begins paving his own way to Azkaban.


After summing up this scenario for the purpose of posting it I 
realized that C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.GE.R. was not an adequate 
description. What I have in hand here is in fact not one measly 
Bludger, but a full?blown and slightly chaotic Quidditch match: James 
and Lily soar through the air gracefully tossing and catching the 
Quaffle in perfect harmony with each other, poor old Snape takes 
several love?Bludgers in the face resulting in crooked nose and a 
cranky attitude and Sirius zooms around as Beater until he gets 
rather beaten up himself. Dimorphotheca transfigures into a very 
elusive Snitch and disappears completely and Lupin, constant to his 
chivalrous character, decides that wizards should indeed introduce a 
punishment for fouling to their sports, presents himself with a red 
card and walks off the pitch. A chubby baby sporting wings and a bow 
and arrows overlooks the whole scene bent double with laughter and 
clearly not doing its job of refereeing the game.


That's E.L.G.I.N.M.A.R.B.L.E.S.: Excitable Love God's Irresponsible 
Negligence over Marauder's Affairs Results in Break?ups and Love?
starved Educators Sorrowing.


Right. So there you have it. The reason I was so reluctant to send it 
is that I have long realized that really my tastes are far too sweet 
and calm for this e?group. I like my good guys good and my bad guys 
bad and Snape just the way he is. Therefore I would like to make it 
clear that E.L.G.I.N.M.A.R.B.L.E.S. is offered with an open 
invitation for an anarchistic carnage at it's expense. Wreak havoc 
guys!


And now the time has come. I must send this. Ahhh, deep breath! 
Charis directs the mouse onto the send button, screws up her face, 
turns the other way ( can't watch!) and press. . . 


Oh, DOOOOOOM!





From boggles at earthlink.net  Sun Feb 24 21:22:22 2002
From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 15:22:22 -0600
Subject: Life Debts, Evil Fudge, and 11-Year-Old Math
In-Reply-To: <a56qn2+iom7@eGroups.com>
References: <a56qn2+iom7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <f05010400b89efb6ce7ff@[66.32.49.80]>

No: HPFGUIDX 35684

At 1:19 AM +0000 2/23/02, judyserenity wrote:
>
>Cindy signed off:
>>  Cindy (wondering how Crouch Jr. is able to kill his father when his
>>  father sprung him from Azkaban, which ought to create at least a
>>  mini-Life Debt)
>
>Yeah, not to mention, Crouch Sr. sprung Crouch Jr. from his loins (You
>can tell that I've been reading the Bible a lot lately.)  You'd think
>that would create a *big* life debt.

In both cases, wouldn't the primary life debt be between Crouch Jr. 
and his _mother_, not his father?  She was the engineer of Jr.'s 
escape - it was obviously her idea and her will that drove it.  And 
she's the one who screamed in labor for 24 hours straight (or however 
long it was, with the state of wizarding medicine and all) to give 
life to him.  Crouch Sr.'s part in both cases was necessary but 
minimal.

So perhaps Crouch Jr. owed the life-debt to his mother - but she's 
dead now, so he's either free or (more likely, given Snape's reaction 
to his life-debt to James) in limbo, unable to pay the debt at all. 
Perhaps that's one reason his mental state seems so, um, rumpled.


At 3:32 PM +0800 2/23/02, Rhea Summers wrote:
>At first, I am convinced that Fudge is a simpering cow who is scared of
>trouble and ultimately, LV's revenge if the Dark Lord ever rises again.
>After reading the discussion about Fudge a few days ago, I'm now sure that
>Fudge is Evil. I want to join the camp. =)

Can I join the camp if I think Fudge is Evil but not a Death Eater or 
in any way associated with Voldemort?  I think he's an _entirely 
seperate_ Evil . . .   (I also think Ludo Bagman is Evil and in 
Fudge's camp rather than Voldemort's . . .)


At 1:11 PM +0000 2/23/02, rollerramla wrote:
>This is a question I've had for a very long time; in fact, from the
>moment I started the books I wondered this. If the students enter
>Hogwarts when they are 11 years old, then does that mean that they
>stop learning math at a 5th grade (or the British equivalent) level? If
>so, it seems that the students graduate having only learned simple
>arithmetic! Any theories? I'd love to hear them. :)

They don't exactly stop learning math - but they do seem to stop 
learning pure mathematics (with one possible exception, which I'll 
get to in a minute); everything after that is applied.

I doubt that they can get through Astronomy without a good grasp of 
mesurements, angles, and the fundamentals of geometry (and possibly a 
little basic trigonometry); they get more of that when they're 
creating astrological charts in Divination.  (That Harry and Ron 
cheat on their charts suggests to me that perhaps a little more 
direct geometric instruction might not be a bad idea.)  Potions 
definately deals with ratios and proportions - one part eye of newt 
to three parts toe of frog, and if we're making a double batch that 
works out to what?  I suspect that some of the same occurs in 
Herbology, for mixes of fertilizers and the like.  There's a bit of 
algebra in advanced Charms, if they deal at all in the velocity and 
acceleration of leviosa'd, accio'ed, and banished objects.  But it's 
all in context; I doubt most wizards see much use in mathematics as a 
subject unto itself.

The probably exception is, of course, Arithmancy.  Technically, the 
name refers to something like gematria or numerology - using the 
numerical values of names and words to make predicitons or find their 
uses.  If that's all it is, then it only requires arithmetic, 
although it requires that one be good at it.  However, I'd prefer for 
it to turn out to be something more like general mathemagic - which 
would definately include geometry (all those mystic symbols require 
it), and probably trig and basic algebra as well.  Perhaps for those 
who study it into their sixth and seventh years, they even broach the 
Moste Potente Mathemagikke of the calculus - certainly many Muggles 
see it as purely magical . . .  :)  The fact that it seems to require 
charts, as we see Hermione working her homework in PoA, suggests to 
me that there are at least logs or trig functions involved.  The name 
of the Professor - Vector - also implies at least some Cartesian 
algebra.



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



From Ryjedi at aol.com  Sun Feb 24 21:43:04 2002
From: Ryjedi at aol.com (rycar007)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:43:04 -0000
Subject: 11-year-old Math Class
In-Reply-To: <a584ed+3gko@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5bmp8+d2mi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35685

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rollerramla" <rollerramla at h...> wrote:
> This is a question I've had for a very long time; in fact, from the 
> moment I started the books I wondered this. If the students enter 
> Hogwarts when they are 11 years old, then does that mean that they
> stop 
> learning math at a 5th grade (or the British equivalent) level? If
> so, 
> it seems that the students graduate having only learned simple 
> arithmetic! Any theories? I'd love to hear them. :)

Hogwarts seems to be a much more sensible school than most Muggle 
insitutions in that students are bombarded with useless information 
day by day. Hermione, for example, wants to use math, therefore she 
chooses to learn it while Harry doesn't, because he'll never really 
use it. Another difference from muggle schools is that Hermione 
learns math in an applied setting, none of this do-some-logs-without-
your-calculator-because-well-we-can't-think-of-a-reason-just-do-it 
that I remember so well. I've never ended up using any math beyond 
5th grade level. Why should Harry?

Hogwarts teaches applied skills such as Defense Against the Dark Arts 
and Charms, skills that actually have use in real (wizard) life. 
Beyond that, they are allowed to specialize in skills they'll need, 
with none of this "well rounded" stuff to make them mediocre, at 
least not in skills they don't need. I would send a child to Hogwarts 
in a second.

But here's what I wonder. Say a Hogwarts student was a brilliant 
author and wanted to continue this art after finishing his wizard 
training. Would Hogwarts enchant his application so it looked like a 
normal High School, with perfect 1600 SAT scores? :)

-Rycar

(I always understood the math at school, just never bothered doing 
the homework. I dropped it as soon as possible in favor of more 
English classes. I carry my calculator around in my pocket.)




From siskiou at earthlink.net  Sun Feb 24 22:08:39 2002
From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:08:39 -0800
Subject: Scabbers/Pettigrew
Message-ID: <4061302600.20020224140839@earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35686


Just been wondering about Scabbers/Pettigrew.

Why do you think he chose the Weasley family to hide out
with all this time?

Just coincidence? Or could he learn a lot while living there
as a family pet, assuming his life as a rat didn't take away
too many of his faculties?

Did he regularly go to Hogwarts with one of the kids and
have opportunities to spy?

What would he have done if he hadn't been discovered in PoA?
Just continued to be a rat forever, maybe moving on to
another family?

After all, at some point the Weasleys would have started to
wonder about Scabbers longevity.

It just didn't seem to me that he had any big plans of
re-joining LV, but I've been known to overlook the obvious.

And if there *was* a reason for Pettigrew to choose the
Weasleys, I wonder what exactly it was and if it's something
sinister to come out in future books.

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




From tanie_05 at hotmail.com  Sun Feb 24 22:07:12 2002
From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:07:12 -0000
Subject: James And Petunia???( Was Re: Quaffling, Herm-eyeofevil-ne, ...)
In-Reply-To: <01f101c1bc5d$046b3600$d61dddcb@price>
Message-ID: <a5bo6g+8ohm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35687

Tabouli wrote:
> saintbacchus:
> > Petunia - Anger and resentment
> 
> Ahaaa!  It's a clue!  Maybe until Lily snared James, Petunia 
festered in silence, half-resentful, half-admiring of her sister's 
powers.  In fact, it was *Petunia*, Lily's slim, blonde Muggle 
sister, that James originally dated, after she turned up with her 
parents to watch a Hogwarts Quidditch match.  They exchanged 
passionate owls all through term, and met in Hogsmeade on weekends.  
It wasn't until James' eye roved onto one of his "own kind", her red-
haired little sister, that Petunia developed the blistering hatred 
and jealousy we see today.  In a final gesture of devastated 
defiance, she sent the happy couple a bouquet of petunias and then 
vowed to hate Wizardry and all the Potters' heirs and successors for 
the rest of her life...

(watching post like a movie, starts choking on the popcorn as she 
reads the quote above)HUH? Did I seriously miss something? I know I'm 
no expert on the Potterverse, but HUH? (that's all I can say, I'm so 
shocked.) What basis is there on this theory? Yeah, I'd have believed 
it until we got to the whole James & Petunia part. Now there is where 
you lost me. How on God's green Earth would James & Petunia date? If 
she's even a little bit jealous of her sister's powers, what would 
possess Petunia to go out with someone with *the same, exact powers*? 
It makes no sense whatsoever to me. But hey, it's your progative. Do 
whatcha wanna. I'm gonna try & breathe now.

-Kyrstyne(who is trying to get the popcorn out her throat)




From miss_hollygolightly at hotmail.com  Sun Feb 24 23:30:51 2002
From: miss_hollygolightly at hotmail.com (hollygolightly95)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 23:30:51 -0000
Subject: Fudge is Way Evil and I have the acronyms to prove it
In-Reply-To: <a5b3p8+fk7o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5bt3b+mvil@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35688

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:
 The best I can figure
> is that hysterical Sirius broke his own wand, Pettigrew destroyed
> or vanished his (as any murderer would dispose of the weapon),
> and that Voldemort's wand was found at Godric's Hollow by the
> Ministry and  later recovered by Pettigrew, who left a fake wand in
> its place.
> Pippin
> F.U.D.

I wholeheartedly support the mounting evidence against Fudge (many 
thanks to fellow members of Evil Fudge Camp for bringing some very 
good points to our attention). 
However, I must strongly protest against Sirius being 
branded 'hysterical' (although he had every reason to be). 

Holly
(aka Adhara)

 







From Zarleycat at aol.com  Mon Feb 25 01:44:08 2002
From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 01:44:08 -0000
Subject: Marauders learning to be animagi....
In-Reply-To: <3C78E7AB.7878.13405A13@localhost>
Message-ID: <a5c4t8+e92f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35689

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Fiat Incantatum" <fiatincantatum at a...> 
wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2002 at 8:23, Felicia Rickmann wrote:
> 
> > Looking at the animagus throughout the HP canon, it strikes me 
that the
> > actual creature an animagus turns into always seems to reflect 
something of
> > their character.
> > 
> > Dreadful Rita Skeeter becomes a creepy crawly beetle (GoF),  
Pettigrew a
> > lowly rat and James Potter a noble stag (PoA).   So I  would 
think that
> > while the actual process of becoming an animal is
> >  proably a magical skill that could be learned, the magic takes 
the
> > personality traits of an animagus into account and governs to a 
large extent
> > what the person turns into.  
> 
> er ... do we want to explore why McGonagall turns into a cat then?  
Cats being 
> the insatiably curious, hedonsitic little beasts that they are?  
Maybe there's 
> more to her than meets the eye?

I think there is definitely more to McGonagall than we've seen.  IMO, 
she's been one of those characters who has hovered on the sidelines, 
popping up now and then when the coach calls for the second string to 
come in when the main players need a rest.  I hope we'll get more 
depth to her in the upcoming books.

As to why a cat, well, sure, maybe McGonagall is famous for spending 
her vacations at Club Med, lounging in the sun and picking up pool 
boys...But, there are other cat qualities that she may have:

 -The ability to sneak up on an enemy or prey silently.
 -Patience to stalk prey and wait for them to make a foolish move.
 -The uncanny knack to disappear into thin air.  Trust me.  I live 
with four of these other-worldly beasts and they do have the knack of 
disappearing.  I'll be looking for one in particular and will look in 
her favorite hiding places.  She won't be there, but when I look 
again, thirty seconds later, there she is.  I don't know how she does 
it. 
 -Lightning quick reflexes.  Maybe McGonagall has an amazingly fast
wand hand.
 -Spine-twisting agility.  
 - The perverse insistance of doing things as the cat wants to do 
them, when the cat wants to do them, without any consideration given 
to the human the cat lives with.  This doesn't seem at all McGonagall-
ish, as she seems, so far, to be a team player, and not one who is 
prone to going off on her own way.

Okay, so, we haven't seen these feline traits yet in McGonagall, but, 
maybe this cat thing has been a neon sign that's been hanging out 
there for all of us to see, so that when she does something truly cat-
like, we'll all hit ourselves in the head and say, "Of course she 
could do that - she's a cat!"

Marianne







From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Feb 25 03:29:08 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 03:29:08 -0000
Subject: Genetically Enhanced Harry?
In-Reply-To: <a5afpd+j2c0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5cb24+p54c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35690

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "caes56" <Caeser56 at s...> wrote:

> There was a theory a bit back that Harry was Godric's heir- what 
> if, instead of being Godric's heir, Harry was made from inception
> or somehow infused with more magic from birth to be able to fight 
> Voldemort? 

What would that do to the 'it is our choices that make us what we 
are' moral of the story? Of course his choices would still be of 
major importance: he COULD choose to take his special powers and go 
work for Voldemort, or to conquer Voldemort only in order to take 
his place as Dark Lord, or to run away to another country and live a 
peaceful life. Therefore, this plan would only work if the good guys 
could have confidence in what choice Harry would make. But if they 
can have such confidence in his choice, more than ten years before it 
is made, that choice must not be particularly free!

Imagine how Harry would feel if he found that his parents hadn't 
particularly loved each other, but had each broken up with the person 
they really loved because they were the two with the best magic or 
genes to bear the designer baby? And they hadn't particularly wanted 
a baby to cuddle or a child to play Catch with, but only to do their 
part to create a weapon against the Dark Lord? And no one had ever 
cared whether he'd be happy in life, but they only wanted to use him 
against Voldemort. I can see reason for him to throw a huge tantrum, 
shouting: "None of you have ever done anything for me that would 
give you a right to demand that I throw my life away to save you!"

Altho' JKR has presented Harry in canon as a person who would 
continue to fight the Dark Side no matter how pissed he was at the 
representatives of the Light Side.




From skelkins at attbi.com  Mon Feb 25 03:30:50 2002
From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 03:30:50 -0000
Subject: Enviable and pitiable characters
In-Reply-To: <a51fh4+ddl5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5cb5a+s0s0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35691

Playing a bit of catch-up here...

Cindy asked:

> This is the opposite of Devin's question about which characters we 
> pity.  In other words, which character seems to have a very good 
> lot in life?  Careful now, because your answer may reveal something 
> about what you value.

I will consider myself warned.  ;-)

Bearing in mind, of course, that the less we know about people
the easier it becomes to envy their lot in life, I would still 
like to cast my vote for Most Enviable Character for little
Professor Flitwick.

He has a comfortable job, and he is good at it.  He is confident
enough in his role as an instructor to allow the students to slack 
off and have a bit of fun at Christmas time, but he is no push-over 
either: in GoF, he gives Harry and Neville extra assignments when 
they both seem to be faltering in his Charms class.  He is friendly 
and accessible and gives no impression of House bias in his dealings
with the students.  If he were one of my teachers and I were having
difficulty with his subject, I would feel perfectly comfortable 
going to him out of class for extra help; I suspect that most of
Hogwarts' students feel the same way.  Flitwick's teaching style
may not be as flashily challenging as Snape's, nor as blatantly 
"tough but fair" as McGonagall's, but it is rock-solid.  His
students learn their stuff, and they seem to learn it well.  He's 
a very good teacher.

Flitwick is also well-respected among his peers.  We know that he 
has talent in his field: in his youth he was a duelling champion;
McGonagall enlists his aid in checking Harry's Firebolt for signs
of tampering; and when discussing the Fidelius Charm in Hogsmeade,
the other adults instantly defer to him to give the explanation
of precisely what the Charm is and how it works.  

He would also seem to be quite well-liked and to have the ability
to get along well with a wide variety of types of people.  He 
goes out for drinks with McGonagall, Hagrid and the Minister of 
Magic himself in PoA, and there is no indication that he is not
perfectly comfortable with all three of them.  Everybody seems to
like him.  Even Snape never has a single snipe for Flitwick.  

And he seems very content.  If he cares at all that House 
Ravenclaw never nabs the Quiddich or House Cup, then he does
an excellent job of hiding his resentment.  He would seem not
to be particularly competitive at all, really -- although given
that he was once a duelling champion, we can assume that this
isn't because he's at all *incapable* of showing a good fighting
spirit when he feels like it.  He's just plain too *well-adjusted* 
to give way to envy or resentment or jealousy over such trivial
matters.  And good for him!  He's sane.  Sane, cheerful, kind...
the guy has simply got it together.

Of course, there may well be some dreadful tragedy in the poor
guy's past.  But if there is, then he would seem to be handling 
it remarkably well.  And that's an enviable quality too, come to 
think of it.

So Flitwick gets my vote for the character I envy the most.  After
all, who wouldn't want to be well-liked, well-respected, eminently 
well-adjusted, and comfortably ensconced in a secure job at
which you excel?


As for pity, my vote goes to Diggory.

No, no.  Not Cedric.  *Amos.*

Like Judy, I don't pity the dead.  Cedric died cleanly and 
quickly, and while it's certainly very sad that he died so
young, I tend to think of the dead (with the exception of
ghosts) as being well beyond the need for pity.

No, I pity Amos Diggory.  The poor man.  Cedric would seem 
to have been an only child, and it's just painfully obvious 
that the kid meant all the world to him.  He was if anything 
over-involved in his son's life, over-identified.  And when 
we see him at the end of GoF, he is grieved beyond the capacity 
for speech.  He doesn't even seem capable of providing any 
support at all to his wife.  The man's just a mess.  

I think that losing a child to murder must be one of the most
horrible things that anyone could ever undergo, and when you're
an overidentified parent like Amos Diggory, it's got to be just
that much worse.  So Amos gets my pity vote.

And as for that suggestion that someone (I can't remember who,
sorry) made a while back that poor Amos Diggory might be high 
on the list of Characters Now Vulnerable To Seduction By the 
Dark Side, all I can say is: my God, have you no *heart?*
I mean, the very thought!  It just makes me want to drop my
head down on the keyboard and *weep,* that does.


-- Elkins, fearing that she may well losing her Edge





From psion_x at yahoo.com.au  Mon Feb 25 03:07:32 2002
From: psion_x at yahoo.com.au (psion_x)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 03:07:32 -0000
Subject: Time: Harry Potter a different Universe with a Different Calander?
Message-ID: <a5c9pk+89sk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35692

How would you explain the problem of time in the Harry Potter 
series, just ignore it? Or does it bother you no end, until you have 
to start making up theories about mysterious extra days, or assume 
it was all just a typo. Do you think JKR ever noticed when writing 
that none of the dates match? Do you think she wrote the dates in 
the books to correspond with the year she actually WROTE them for 
example Goblet of Fire which should be 1994 follows a 1998 calander.

Do you think we can assume that for some reason the Wizarding world 
influenced the introduction of the Julian calander four years early, 
which would make the HP series half work.
Harry's birthday been on Tuesday July 31st doesn't work which ever 
way you put it, under the four years early assumption it's on a 
Monday, is that a believable mistake of Harry's?

The next time a date's specifically mentioned as far as I can tell 
is Trelawney's prediction to Lavender: "' Incidently that thing you 
are dreading- it will happen on Friday the Sixteenth of October.'" 
HP and the PA Pg.80 (Australain Paperback) But I ask just how 
reliable is Trelawney anyway? For the record the four years earlier 
calander has the 16th of October a Thursday. It's a bit weak, but 
Chapter 8 doesn't say in so many words that October 16th is a 
Friday, Lavender and Hermione merely mention the date, not the DAY.
There are a number of practice sessions between the beginning of the 
Chapter (starting October 1) to that time, so why assume it's a 
Thursday.

Plus if we consider HP a whole different Universe with a different 
calander we can assume that prehaps the phases of the moon are 
different as well. ( The Lexicon mentions that in PA the full moon 
doesn't occur when it's meant to).

So what do you think, mad speculation on my part?

Psion_x :O)





From Zorb17 at aol.com  Mon Feb 25 03:14:20 2002
From: Zorb17 at aol.com (Zorb17 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:14:20 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: 11-year-old Math Class
Message-ID: <155.97ceccb.29ab060d@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35693

In a message dated Sun, 24 Feb 2002  4:44:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, "rycar007" <Ryjedi at aol.com> writes:

> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rollerramla" <rollerramla at h...> wrote:
> > This is a question I've had for a very long time; in fact, from the 
> > moment I started the books I wondered this. If the students enter 
> > Hogwarts when they are 11 years old, then does that mean that they
> > stop 
> > learning math at a 5th grade (or the British equivalent) level? If
> > so, 
> > it seems that the students graduate having only learned simple 
> > arithmetic! Any theories? I'd love to hear them. :)
> 
> Hogwarts seems to be a much more sensible school than most Muggle 
> insitutions in that students are bombarded with useless information 
> day by day. Hermione, for example, wants to use math, therefore she 
> chooses to learn it while Harry doesn't, because he'll never really 
> use it. 

The problem with this is that at 13 years old, how are you supposed to know whether you're going to be using more complex math as an adult?  When I was 13, I was firmly convinced that I wouldn't be using it, though I continued through calculus in high school.  When I started college, I ditched math entirely, convinced I was going to be a non-science major.  It took only one quarter to prove me completely wrong.

The point is, those required higher math courses really are good for kids, most of whom won't pick a career field for years.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the Hogwarts kids get their math indirectly through other classes.  Some classes (Arithmancy) use it more than others, but they're all getting something beyond primary school level.


Zorb




From jmmears at prodigy.net  Mon Feb 25 04:18:38 2002
From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 04:18:38 -0000
Subject: Was enviable/pitiable  Amos Diggory
In-Reply-To: <a5cb5a+s0s0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5cduv+696p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35694

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" <skelkins at a...> wrote:



> 
> No, I pity Amos Diggory.  The poor man.  Cedric would seem 
> to have been an only child, and it's just painfully obvious 
> that the kid meant all the world to him.  He was if anything 
> over-involved in his son's life, over-identified.  And when 
> we see him at the end of GoF, he is grieved beyond the capacity 
> for speech.  He doesn't even seem capable of providing any 
> support at all to his wife.  The man's just a mess.  
> 
> I think that losing a child to murder must be one of the most
> horrible things that anyone could ever undergo, and when you're
> an overidentified parent like Amos Diggory, it's got to be just
> that much worse.  So Amos gets my pity vote.
> 
> And as for that suggestion that someone (I can't remember who,
> sorry) made a while back that poor Amos Diggory might be high 
> on the list of Characters Now Vulnerable To Seduction By the 
> Dark Side, all I can say is: my God, have you no *heart?*
> I mean, the very thought!  It just makes me want to drop my
> head down on the keyboard and *weep,* that does.
>

While I agree with you that he's unlikely to be seduced by the dark 
side, I think that he may be vulnerable to being unwittingly used by 
them to harm Harry.
In GoF we see that he has resentment towards Harry for upstaging 
Cedric in the Rita Skeeter article.  This is of course, quite unfair 
of him as Molly points out (Chap. 31 The Third Task), but we know 
already he has a large blind spot where Cedric's concerned.  He also 
accuses Harry of conjuring the Dark Mark in chapter 9, and all in 
all is very prone to jumping to negative conclusions where Harry is 
concerned.
I was quite surprised when, in Chap. 37, he doesn't blame Harry for 
Cedric's death since it would have been consistant with Amos' 
character to do so (although I was very relieved that he didn't.  
Poor Harry has suffered more than enough at this point).  However, 
he was mad with grief at this point.  I fear that as time goes by, 
that grief will turn to bitterness and anger, and who is most likely 
to be the target?
I fear and expect that Amos will begin to vent his feelings publicly 
and accuse Harry of all sorts of awful things, fanning any 
smouldering suspicions others may have about the events at the end 
of the tournament.  I think that Harry's in for a very rough ride in 
book 5.

Jo Serenadust




From tanie_05 at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 25 04:46:21 2002
From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 04:46:21 -0000
Subject: The Mauraders' Forms
Message-ID: <a5cfit+jfvv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35695

Hi everyone. With all the talk about how the Mauraders learned to 
become Animagi, a thought struck me. The forms each Maurader took 
described them rather well. Let's take a peek:

Sirius(Padfoot)-Black dog:
Dogs are loyal and caring about others, much like Sirius was pre-
Azkaban & is being post-Azkaban. He obviously is trying to be there 
for Harry, especially now, when he'll need it most.

James(Prongs)-Stag:
When I read about James transforming into a stag, I immediately 
thought about the time I went to a nature habitat(a zoo with no 
cages, just open fields) and I saw 2 stags fighting. I asked the 
guide why were they fighting & she told me that stags are very 
protective of their families, & that one stag was trying to invade on 
the other's family. This reminds me of James, since from what I can 
infer, he was very protective of his family & friends, much like the 
stag. Very uncanny.

Remus(Moony)-Werewolf:
Now, I'm not too sure about Remus. He got bit by a werewolf when he 
was little. I don't know what similarities there are. If anybosy 
picks up on any please let me know. He's the only one I have trouble 
with. 

and finally...
Peter(Wormtail)-Rat:
OK, I'm soooo ready for this one. Peter was the scum of the crew. 
He "ratted" his best friends to Voldemort, causing their deaths. 
(Personally, I wonder how he can sleep at night, knowing what he did. 
Lord knows I couldn't.) So he's a rat. Very appropriate. (Well, I 
think he should be put in Azkaban for enternity, but hey my opinion 
won't change a thing.)

So there it is, my summary. Any questions? Comments? Compliments?

-Kyrstyne(who is about to go to bed, since now she's yawning)




From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Feb 25 05:20:40 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 05:20:40 -0000
Subject: Enviable and pitiable characters
In-Reply-To: <a5cb5a+s0s0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5chj8+kv9u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35696

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" <skelkins at a...> wrote:
> If he were one of my teachers and I were having difficulty with his
> subject, I would feel perfectly comfortable going to him out of 
> class for extra help; I suspect that most of Hogwarts' students
> feel the same way. 

Yes, but if he were my House master (Flitwick is Master of Ravenclaw 
and I am a Ravenclaw) I don't think I could bear to go to him with 
any problem about sex or broken hearts or other students picking on 
me...  This short guy who squeaks in excitement and falls off his 
desk...  

> So Amos gets my pity vote.
> 
> And as for that suggestion that someone (I can't remember who,
> sorry) made a while back that poor Amos Diggory might be high 
> on the list of Characters Now Vulnerable To Seduction By the 
> Dark Side, all I can say is: my God, have you no *heart?*
> I mean, the very thought!  It just makes me want to drop my
> head down on the keyboard and *weep,* that does.

Yes, Amos is just *destroyed* to lose his son who meant everything 
to him.  The only way I can think of for him to be seduced by the 
Dark Side (the murderers of his son! on whom surely he seeks more 
vengeance!) now is if some Death Eater recruiter persuaded him that 
Voldemort's Dark Magic and Immortality Spells could bring Cedric back 
to life.




From skelkins at attbi.com  Mon Feb 25 05:49:22 2002
From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 05:49:22 -0000
Subject: The Big Bangers and Neville
In-Reply-To: <a5b44h+1p4b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5cj92+js6u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35697

Cindy, who only beats up men, wrote:

> So I issue a challenge. Something Big must be going on with 
> Neville. Surely he isn't going to spend seven books as a timid, 
> forgetful boy chasing after a useless toad. What is Neville's 
> backstory, then? Any takers?

Hmmmph.  Well.  The *last* time we tried to discuss Neville, I seem
to remember that you gave me my ring back.  And all of the love 
letters.  *And* you mocked my SYCOPHANTS badge.

But maybe now that you're captaining that big scary destroyer, I can
convince you to change your mind?

Cindy:

> But look what happens if we push back the attack on the Longbottoms 
> into 1983. Suddenly, Neville is over 3 years old. And do you know 
> what happens next? People come streaming out of the woodwork to 
> tell me all of the horrors visited upon them when they were 3, how 
> they vividly recall being spanked in the supermarket at this age, 
> how desperately they wish they had received a Memory Charm...

But that's the entire *point,* Cindy.  We *want* him traumatized.
We want poor little toddler Neville, huddling in the closet while
the Evil Death Eeaters horribly torture Mum and Dad.  And do you 
know *why* we want it that way?

Because it's a Very Big Bang.  *That's* why.

I mean, please.  What is all this wishy-washy "oh, let's keep him only
an infant, because that way he could never have really been 
traumatized much anyway" nonsense?  What is all this "Oh, we can't 
give the poor kid a suppressed traumatic memory -- that's just so 
ugly, it's all so *crooo-el* -- so let's just make it a Reverse 
Memory Charm instead" tripe?

Really!  What sort of talk is *that* for the Captain of the Big Bang 
Destroyer?

Sheesh.  Some people just have no idea where their best interests 
really lie, do they?

Look, Neville at the Court Hearing is a *Dud,* okay?  You know it, I 
know it. Everyone knows it.  It lacks drama.  It lacks pizzazz.  It 
lacks oomph.  It lacks any sturm-und-drang at all, frankly.  An 
infant gurgles his way merrily through a scene of unspeakable 
atrocity, but is later enchanted to be able to point one pudgy finger 
at the Lestranges and blurt "Gah?"

Booo-ring.

No.  No, what you *want* here is toddler Neville.  You want sentient 
Neville.  You want capable-of-understanding-cause-and-effect 
Neville.  You want huddling-in-the-closet-whimpering-pitifully-with-
his-eyes-squeezed-tightly-shut-while-rocking-back-and-forth-
autistically Neville.  Come on.  You *know* that you do.  You *know* 
that deep down in your heart, you want it that way.  It's Bigger.  
It's Bangier.  It's far more cinematic.  And besides all of that, it 
also gives you the opportunity to remove that Memory Charm later on 
and get the even Bigger and even Bangier Flashback Neville.

Or, if you *really* wanted Big and Bangy, you could even grit your 
teeth and adopt Tex's suggestion of Tortured Neville.  I've not got 
quite the Edge for that one, myself, but you're the one with the 
passion for the catalytic backstories.  And really, you can't get 
much more catalytic than Tortured As a Toddler To Get Stalwart Hero 
Father To Crack, now, can you?

Heh.  If I didn't know better, I would be starting to suspect that 
deep down inside, Cindy just might be a tad...well.  Dare I even 
suggest it?  *Squeamish,* perhaps?  

And besides, who ever heard of a "Reverse Memory Charm," anyway?  
There's no such thing in canon.  What we do have are Memory Charms.  
They mess up your mind; they make you absent-minded and forgetful; 
they make poor Mr. Roberts talk just like Neville does after Fake 
Moody's DADA class; they've been amply foreshadowed through the last 
*three* volumes of the series -- and you want to make it a Reverse 
Memory Charm just 'cause you're a little bit *squeamish?*  Just 
'cause you're not man enough to Tough It Out when it comes to 
traumatized Neville?

<shakes head sadly>

Oh, Cindy.  Cindy.  Can't you see reason here?


Cindy wrote:

> Big Bang is actually quite a busy-body, because Big Bang also plans 
> to weigh in on CUPID'SBLUDGER (that is, that Florence's kissing 
> behind the greenhouse is important for some reason and is related 
> to why Sirius hates Snape). As soon as Big Bang can think of a Bang 
> that is sufficiently Big, we will report back to the group. 

Jake said:

> And I propose that we put Cupid's Quaffle to the Big Bang test. 

Hear, hear!  Enthusiastically seconded!

> I'm tempted to believe that having her surreptitious snogging with 
> Sirius brought to light, combined with the 'realisation' that she's 
> been being used, nay *pitied* by Sirius in the first place is 
> enough to turn her from simply a nasty-tempered but bookish girl 
> into the Vamp that becomes Dead Sexy Mrs. Lestrange.

Well, it's certainly catalytic, all right.  And I personally think 
that it's quite Big Bang-worthy.

It would be even Bigger and Bangier, of course, if only we could up 
the adult content a bit and make it so that Florence is actually 
carrying Sirius Black's _love child_ at the time...but of course, we 
can't do that.  JKR has stated that she isn't going to deal with 
those sorts of issues so <very earnest look here indeed> *that* would 
make the theory *non-canonical.*

And heaven knows we can't have that.


-- Elkins




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Mon Feb 25 05:33:41 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:33:41 +1100
Subject: Snape: non-Vampire, emotions vs principles
Message-ID: <008701c1bdc6$3e627a20$df30c2cb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35698

Porphyria:
> First off, I need to thank Judy, 
Yoris, and jklb66 for their kind words about my last post on why Snape 
oughtn't be a Vampire. I feel all gushy inside! See kids, we have to 
band together to drive a stake through the heart of this theory whenever 
it rears its ugly head. ;-) <

As Captain of LOLLIPOPS, I have a responsibility not to discriminate against crew and passengers on the basis of their beliefs.  I am aware that there are people on board my Ship sunk deep in the throat of the Vampire theory, and I have striven to make them feel welcome by providing a special Vampire Cabin, where prosthetic fangs, blood samples and hydroponically grown bulbs of garlic are provided for their entertainment.  However, at risk of causing ripples in the rigging, I'll confess that I've long been infected by the:

S.I.A.M.E.S.E.V.I.R.U.S. (Snape Is Already Mysterious Enough, So Extra Vampiricism Is Rendered Unquestionably Superfluous)

I mean, come on.  We *already* have one werewolf, one half-giant, one quarter-Veela, and at least four unregistered Animagi... do we really need to crowbar in *another* twist of this type?  Especially with a character like Snape, who already has enough mystique and torment up his swirling black sleeves. Nope, I definitely favour the solitary-pink-flamingo-in-Gothic-cathedral approach of LOLLIPOPS (colourful metaphor c/o Marina, I think!).

I also sniff at suggestions that Snape is a principle driven intellectual who wouldn't let an emotional triviality like Love Of Lily sway him.  Snape's personal vendetta against Harry a principled, intellectual, unemotional one??  Snape's reactions to Sirius, from the shrieking about his escape to the snarling, reluctant handshake, purely intellectual and principle driven??  Snape being accused of disloyalty to Dumbledore by Crouch/Moody, gripping the chair when Ginny gets taken by Riddle, sweeping into his first Potions class spouting poetry, a man divorced from emotional reactions?  Ha.  Snape is an emotional man with a sense of the dramatic and, I'd wager, no small measure of acting ability (he was a spy, after all).

What I see in Snape is a man whose emotions and principles are in continual conflict (similar to but not quite the same as what others have said about his natural tendencies towards evil warring with his better moral nature).  In the time where the books are set, he seems to have struck an uneasy balance, where he lets his emotions win the little battles, but lets his principles rule over the more important domains of life and death.  In the classroom, he lets his disgust at weakness and incompetence get the better of him, and bullies Neville cruelly, and lets his grudge against Harry manifest as sneering and victimisation.  However, in life and death matters, his alliance to the Good Side triumphs... he discreetly saves Harry from Quirrell, puts children who've attacked him and even arch-enemy Sirius on stretchers, risks his life to spy for Dumbledore.

Judging by what happens when you dig up events from his past, i.e. strong emotional reactions (to the Prank, to reminders of his Death Eater history), I'd say Snape's current incarnation as man whose principles hold tenuous sway over his emotions when it really counts may be a reasonably recent development.  If he's a principled intellectual now, I'd say he's one made, not born, probably because letting his emotions take the reins led to some serious trouble in his past.  I'd say as teenager, his emotions were king, and it wasn't until he learned some very harsh lessons that he developed the ability to control his emotional tendency towards nastiness and revenge.

Which is why I maintain my objections to the "Snape's a principled man not a mushball who'd make important decisions centred around his girl" too EWW to be TREWW line.  In my version of LOLLIPOPS, the decision to *join* the Death Eaters was an emotional one... his decision to *leave* them was the principled one.

As a child, as an adolescent, revenge seems to be the major motivating force for Snape... he turned up at 11 having learned hundreds of curses, he was bullied by the Marauders and dedicated years to trying to catch them out and get them expelled, leading to the Prank.  Carefully thought out, intellectual decisions?  Actions based around sound moral principles??  Hardly.  He was being driven by an emotional agenda, wanting to punish those who wronged him, and I'd wager that was the agenda behind his signing up to work with Voldemort.  After all, his thwarters were on the other side, weren't they?  Voldemort would give him a licence to Punish!

(also, as I've said before, a boy who feels wronged and thwarted and persecuted is a very very likely candidate for a huge crush on the first pretty girl who is kind to him.  Hence my backstory includes Lily, who *is* principled, speaking out against Sirius' victimisation of Snape, and thereby overwhelming Snape's tormented young heart).

*Then* we have a touch of George.  At first Snape revels in the torture of his foes, but once the edge has been taken off his vengeful emotions, the rational, intellectual, principled side began to surface.  What exactly is he trying to achieve by torturing Muggles and strangers?  After the initial bloodrush, he doesn't really enjoy it any more, certainly not like those vicious Lestranges and that bloodthirsty Avery.  As for those unspeakable Marauders James and Sirius, isn't he doing to others exactly what they did to him?  He hated being victimised by them, but the person he has become is no better.  He is a murderer now, killing people for no better reason than that a madman is telling him to.

The LOLLIPOPS angle here is that he already had an illustration of someone who wasn't afraid to stand up for her principles... Lily.  As his doubts grow, her memory is a moral compass for him.  She stood up for him when he was bullied, and judged Sirius harshly; now he's the bully, and she would judge him just as harshly, in fact more harshly... he isn't just taunting and Pranking, he's actually killing people.  What has he become?

This, I would argue, is actually a moral principle issue, *not* a mushy issue.  Lily as role model as much as Lily the lost love.  By her past actions, she awakened the moral conscience slumbering under Snape's vengeful, bitter emotions.  The threat to her family is what suddenly triggers Snape's recognition of the immorality of his actions, because it makes it *real*... someone he knows and loves will suffer for the rest of her life because of his actions.  Something he has already done to countless other people.

The moral crisis, already building, hits a critical mass.  The vengeful emotions that drove Snape to Voldemort seem childish and abominable; his actions since then unspeakably immoral.  Snape's principles rise up to conquer his emotions and he goes to Dumbledore announcing he wants to change sides.  Dumbledore is wary of this young man, whose thirst for revenge turned him into a Death-Eater.  Therefore, Snape must prove to Dumbledore that those vengeful emotions are now controlled and ruled completely by the principles that led him to change sides.  What better way to do this than enlist Snape's services as spy?

I say the decision to *leave* Voldemort was definitely based on moral principles, and that this fits in seamlessly with LOLLIPOPS.  Because, of course, if Snape loved Lily, why abandon the Death Eaters when they were going to kill her husband and son and leave her free for him??  Emotions would have kept him firmly under Voldemort's wing.  Only principles could send him to Dumbledore to *save* the Potters and *save* Lily's happiness, while simultaneously working against his own private longing to have Lily for himself.

Which, of course, makes the fact that Lily herself actually ended up dying unnecessarily to save Harry about as horrible an outcome for Snape as you could imagine.

No wonder he hates Harry so much...

Tabouli.


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




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Mon Feb 25 05:35:44 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:35:44 +1100
Subject: Evil Fudge Acronym
Message-ID: <008801c1bdc6$40d723a0$df30c2cb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35699

Oh yes, and just one more thing... I'm happy to serve anyone who thinks Fudge is ever so evil a nice greasy serve of F.I.S.H.F.I.N.G.E.R.S (Fudge's Incompetent Spinelessness Hides Foul Intentions Governing Every Regressive Step)...

Tabouli.




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




From psion_x at yahoo.com.au  Mon Feb 25 03:20:15 2002
From: psion_x at yahoo.com.au (psion_x)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 03:20:15 -0000
Subject: A Levels vs N.E.W.Ts
Message-ID: <a5cahf+6nu1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35700

Yet another question which I'm not sure is on topic or not.
N.E.W.Ts are assumed to be the equivilent of A Levels in England 
(post all the changes).

Anyway I was wondering what's the TOTAL number of A Levels you can 
take? Is there a limit, say no more than 6? Or can you take as many 
as you want? Would someone like Hermione be able to handle more than 
6?
 
Also it seems as I've mentioned before- that at least Charms, DADA, 
Potions and Transfiguration would be compulsary, for exam Fred and 
George are still doing DADA in Sixth Year and Hermione tells Ron and 
Harry " ' If only we'd done Human Transfiguration all ready!But I 
don't think we start that until our Sixth Year.'"

Plus it seems those four are WAY too important to not learn 
everything about, they seem to represent the four main branches of 
magic Charms allow you to do things 'Accio' for example, DADA is 
defense spells against evil,Potions is magic without a wand, and 
Transfiguration is changing things for what you need ie: if you 
don't have something transfigure something else into it.

With all this in mind, do you think there could be a slight 
difference between N.E.W.T's and A Levels, that is you have four 
compulsary N.E.W.T's and can chose 5 or 6 others if you wish?

I ask all of this because I'm writing a HP fan fic as I've mentioned 
before and classes factor in very importantly. Does anyone have any 
good suggestions or should I just wait for all the books to come out 
before I start writing about characters (not the trio) in 6th and 
7th year?

Psion_x :O) 





From huntleyl at mssm.org  Mon Feb 25 04:15:09 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 23:15:09 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pity for characters
References: <a5c4t8+e92f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <01ed01c1bdb3$03cac2e0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 35701

Meep! It is I, one of the hoards of newbies, back from the Vacation-That-Wasn't.  How long does it take to be non-newbie in this place anyway?? A year?? Two??  I've never been part of a big online group that I wasn't a co-founder - or a least an early member - of...it makes me all...antsy *twitches shoulders*.  Let me prostrate myself before you O' Ye Olde Members, I am not worthy.

Heh ^_^ I had 738 messages when I got back...*shrieks and rips out clumps of hair* Anyway, you guys have had some really interesting conversations while I was gone...and umm...I wanted to say...stuff...most of it is incredibly late...but..but..well, nevermind.

First off, I would like announce my hearty support of those who feel that Frank Bryce definitely got the shortest end of the stick.  That poor, poor man.  Whenever I reread GoF I start to cringe when I know his death is coming up. Aiyee, he's such a nice old man.  And when his shadow-self came out of Voldie's wand, he was so..cool.  All like "Huh, I guess he was a wizard after all."  IMHO, Frank is another character with Edge (Erm, in a totally un-sexual kind of way.)  At the beginning of GoF, he was fully prepared to take on two unknown murderer/spies (to the best of his knowledge)..with what? His cane?  God, I love that old man.  When I'm old, I want to be old like that.

 

However, the personality of his shadow-self and the shadow-selves of Cedric and Co. kind of got me thinking.  Don't the shadow-selves seem a little too..well, sentient, to be merely representations of spells the wand has cast?  It makes me wonder if the Avada Kedavra curse actually does more than just kill you.  Perhaps it steals vital parts of the victim's being?  Parts say, like the soul?  Or not, because canon states that people can survive without their souls.  However,  maybe it sort of...absorbs a person's *being*.  In a sense, maybe it sucks not only their life/magic/soul essence out, but, in effect, transfers that essence/power to the wand/wizard.   I'm sure this theory has been discussed before, but well..it's new to me. ^_~ Anyway, a list of reasons why this theory would fit into the plot or answer some questions canon has yet to address...

1) Perhaps this is why the Avada Kedavra curse is Unforgivable.  We know that there are other ways to kill using magic.  (I.e. Peter's blow-up-the-street-specialty-of-the-house.)  Yet these ways are not Unforgivable.  Maybe Avada Kedavra steals a person's essence as well as killing them, robbing them of existence even in the afterlife.  Also, it makes those who use it more powerful, giving it a triple-whammy against it.  It kills, it steals the victims' sacred soul/spirit/whatever, and (as a special extra bonus) it makes the murderer more powerful.  Why *not* make it Unforgivable?  GOOD wizards obviously do not *do* these things. ^_^

 

2) This theory would give dark wizards an incentive to use Avada Kedavra as opposed to otherwise better alternatives.  Why not just use the curse Peter did to blow up the street (or a less damaging alternative, there are lots of ways to kill people, trust me)?  It kills more people with (I assume) less power.  More bang for the buck, as my father used to say.  UNLESS there are hidden benefits to using AK that canon has not yet enlightened us to.

3) This may be why Harry seems to "absorbed" parts of Voldie as a result of the failed AK (parseltounge, etc.  Dumbledore said something to this effect in CoS).  If the AK *backfired* totally, Harry would have ended up getting V's essence instead of the other way around.  Of course, V certainly did retain part of his personality after the failed curse.  Perhaps his experimental immortality spells had the effect of changing parts of his essence into a form AK couldn't steal?  I know this all sounds pretty convoluted, but it makes sense in my head, I swear. ^_~

*sigh* there was more I wanted to talk about, but I forgot it. :(

laura (Suddenly realizes that the word for "to throw oneself upon the ground in deference and humility" is strangely close to the name of an internal male sex gland.  Makes mental note not to mix the two up while attempting intelligent conversation.)   


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





From Cornet83 at aol.com  Mon Feb 25 04:10:20 2002
From: Cornet83 at aol.com (mariahisabel)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 04:10:20 -0000
Subject: Time: Harry Potter a different Universe with a Different Calander?
In-Reply-To: <a5c9pk+89sk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5cdfc+90qs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35702

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "psion_x" <psion_x at y...> wrote:
> How would you explain the problem of time in the Harry Potter 
> series, just ignore it? Or does it bother you no end,>>
> Do you think JKR ever noticed when writing 
> that none of the dates match? Do you think she wrote the dates in 
> the books to correspond with the year she actually WROTE them for 
> example Goblet of Fire which should be 1994 follows a 1998 calander.

Actually no it doesn't bother me at all.  From my understanding, when 
JKR wrote the first Harry Potter novel, she had no idea or intention 
that it would be a world wide phenomenon.  I believe I read somewhere 
(on this site actually, in one of the essays) that during an 
interview, JKR stated that she wrote the books for herself, simply 
because she wanted to do it. She was just writing it to write, and 
when a person does that, normally, they dont take up a lot of time 
perusing old calenders to make sure their dates fit.  She may have 
glanced at one from time to time but I dont think she meant to have 
all (or for that matter any) of the dates be correct.  The dates are 
simply there as a part of the story, something the reader should 
accept.  However, when a book gets this popular there are always 
people who go through the book with a fine tooth comb to find 
discrepancies or those who notice that the author has made a mistake 
or something. But the bottom line, is that it *is* a BOOK. A simple 
(well its really not all that simple) story thought up to entertain 
readers.  Its not meant to fit in with day to day realty. Now dont 
get me wrong, Im all for discussions about who will fall in love with 
who, and whats so-and-sos real motive for this, and so on and ect; 
heck Im even a big fan of the Lexicon which discusses these type of 
things thoroughly. But I really dont see why the dates matter.  As 
long as they arent completely off base, such as "on the 31 of 
February", or something like "today, friday was the 22. Tomarrow, 
Saturday was the 26" i think its all right and fine.  If the dates 
dont match up within the story line, then theres a problem, but so 
what if they arent the actual dates?But ya know thats just my opinion

Mariahisabel






From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 25 04:41:58 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 04:41:58 -0000
Subject: James And Petunia???
In-Reply-To: <a5bo6g+8ohm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5cfam+bjf1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35703

--- "tanie_05" <tanie_05 at h...> wrote:

<<
What basis is there on this theory? Yeah, I'd have
believed it until we got to the whole James & Petunia
part. Now there is where you lost me. How on God's
green Earth would James & Petunia date? If she's even
a little bit jealous of her sister's powers, what
would possess Petunia to go out with someone with
*the same, exact powers*?
>>

That's funny, because I was with it all the way until
the "Snaaaaaape, I am your brother!" part. ^_^

I don't see Petunia as being jealous of Lily's powers.
I think she's jealous because those powers got Lily
tons of attention from their parents. Perhaps her
treatment of Harry and Dudley (taken in combination
with each other, not as separate issues) is a
reenactment of her parents' treatment of herself and
Lily. Or a type of revenge - "Ha ha ha, now that it's
my house, I can make Lily miserable." It would be 
similar to the parallels Rowling set up with the Death
Eaters, anyway. My pet squooshy theory is that Petunia
has a soft spot for Harry somewhere, but can't escape
her childhood long enough to show it.

Back to the 'shipping, I think Petunia is afraid of magic,
which could make James attractive in a dangerous kind
of way. James is a nice guy, but mischievous and magical.
It could be just the right combo to make Petunia's toes
curl. At which point Lily steals his heart, and Petunia
pretends she doesn't care by marrying the most un-Potter
man in England: Vernon Dursley.

This doesn't really jive with my feelings on Lily/James
and Petunia/Vernon, but I suppose it could happen. There
are more unbelievable pairings.





From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 25 04:57:02 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 04:57:02 -0000
Subject: PACMAN & Petunia
In-Reply-To: <01f101c1bc5d$046b3600$d61dddcb@price>
Message-ID: <a5cg6u+5s2j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35704

--- "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> wrote:

<<
Madam, may I present you with a PACMAN (Perfectly Angelic
Characters Make Awful Novels) badge?
>>

Does such a thing actually exist? And if not, can I make
one? I want one for my homepage. It explains succinctly
my passion for the villainous. ^_^ I could do a whole
series, if anybody else wants a badge...although there
are surely more talented people around.


<<
In a final gesture of devastated defiance, she sent the
happy couple a bouquet of petunias and then vowed to hate
Wizardry and all the Potters' heirs and successors for
the rest of her life...
>>

Ah-ha, but that would require a sense of drama and irony
(and a smidge of imagination), none of which Petunia is
supposed to have. Then again, I believe there's more to
her than her Doris-Day-gone-awry exterior, so who knows!
I would rather her hatred of magic be due to poor family
relations, though, because that's more interesting than
romance (and longer lasting).





From uncmark at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 25 08:30:27 2002
From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 08:30:27 -0000
Subject: Genetically Enhanced Harry?
In-Reply-To: <a5cb24+p54c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5csn3+3qlm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35705


> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "caes56" <Caeser56 at s...> wrote:
> 
> There was a theory a bit back that Harry was Godric's heir- what 
> if, instead of being Godric's heir, Harry was made from inception
> or somehow infused with more magic from birth to be able to fight 
> Voldemort? 

 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" <catlady at w...> 
wrote:
> What would that do to the 'it is our choices that make us what we 
> are' moral of the story? Of course his choices would still be of 
> major importance: he COULD choose to take his special powers and go 
> work for Voldemort, or to conquer Voldemort only in order to take 
> his place as Dark Lord, or to run away to another country and live 
> a peaceful life. Therefore, this plan would only work if the good 
> guys could have confidence in what choice Harry would make. But if 
> they can have such confidence in his choice, more than ten years 
> before it is made, that choice must not be particularly free!

I'm thinking Harry probably fulfills some great prophecy about 'a 
great wizard raised by muggles wo defeated Avada Kedavra while still 
a babe. I don't believe that a prophecy would negate free will. 
Harry's rower comes from his parent's love and sacrifice, which magic 
should not be able to affect. No spell should cause true love and I'm 
sure the ancient magic that made Hqarry immune to Vmort was from his 
mother's sacrifice FREELY GIVEN!

I am wondering about the relevence to the color GREEN to Harry. His 
eyes are described as 'brilliant GREEN'; he remembers the GREEN flash 
of LV's magic attack(was this Avada Kedavra?) and rumors have it that 
a future book will be something like "Harry Potter and the Green 
Flame" haveing to do with the nature of magic.

Uncmark




From skelkins at attbi.com  Mon Feb 25 09:24:39 2002
From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:24:39 -0000
Subject: A Credo For George
In-Reply-To: <a52rbc+maeg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5cvsn+lmit@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35706

Marina wrote:

> George fidgets in his chair, stares at his shoes, and wishes rather 
> desperately for a dry martini. 

Well, I *did* offer him a nice hot cup of tea, but for some reason 
he just didn't seem interested at the time.  Silly boy.

A huge thanks to Marina for helping George to cut those apron strings!
I'm feeling ever so much better about George now.  In fact...

<Elkins pins S.W.E.E.T.G.E.O.R.G.I.A.N.I.S.M. badge happily to her 
chest>

I'm with George.

Although George *will* have to forgive me if I occasionally toss a few
theories over to those guys out there on the Big Bang Battleship.  I
may like my Snape all SweetGeorgiany, but I still love my Ewwwws as 
repulsively Ewwww-y as they can get, and my Neville just as Bangy as 
can be -- and I've still a lingering fondness for Bloody Ambushes, as 
well.

As none of those really have all that much to do with Snape himself, 
though, I will assume that while George may whole-heartedly 
disapprove, he will nonetheless refrain from putting me to the stake.

As for my quibbles about the word "visceral," I do think that this 
gets into the realm of...well, of quibbling.  There are levels of 
viscerality, to be sure, and the distinction between a truly visceral 
response, an emotional one, and one based in moral principle or 
cultural upbringing is one that I don't think it is even always 
possible to make with any degree of accuracy -- which is why the 
word "squeamish" can be applied to so many different types of 
hesitation or balking or disgust.  As Marina wrote:

> Some natural inclination, some visceral push is needed in order to 
> get the moral faculty to engage.

Indeed.  But if I may describe the distinction I was trying to make, 
I do see a difference between ones immediate emotional response to, 
in this case, enforcing dominance over another through pain or 
terror, and the secondary response of moral repugnance at having 
witnessed or committed such an act.

In my own experience, at any rate, these aren't necessarily the same
response, and they don't come at quite the same time.  Both certainly 
feel visceral -- both hit you right in the gut, so to speak -- but I 
do tend to think of the first response as the "visceral" one, while 
mentally labelling the revulsion that strikes a moment later as 
the "reaction of principle."

In a perfect world, of course, there would never be the slightest bit 
of disconjunct between the two.  But people aren't always perfect, 
and their instincts aren't always pretty.  Sometimes they can be very 
ugly indeed.

Um.  Am I revealing far too much about myself here?

Elsewhere, Marina wrote:

> See, there's cruelty and there's cruelty. A predilection for 
> reducing people to quivering globs of jelly through dark threats, 
> deadly insults and viciously clever mind games is not the same as a 
> predilection for reducing people to quivering globs of jelly 
> through pulling their intestines out through their left nostril. 

Isn't it?  This may be where we disagree.  I tend to think of the 
distinction as more one of degree than of anything else.  Sadism is a 
predilection for taking pleasure in holding others in ones power, and 
I don't think that it changes all that much in its fundamental 
emotional dynamic when the cruelty enters the realm of the physical.  
What changes, I think, is the recognition of the severity of trespass 
against the other person involved -- which I tend to classify as one 
of those instinctive reactions secondary to, and often following just 
a heartbeat behind, the first "visceral" reaction.

You know, I went through a stage during my teenage years when I got 
pretty appallingly mean myself.  My balk threshold was far lower than 
physical torture, of course, but it was not nearly as low as I dearly 
wish now that it had been.  I remember once walking into the girl's 
bathroom in my school, only to discover that someone to whom I had 
just been quite verbally vicious was sitting there in a locked stall, 
sobbing.  I mean, she was really bawling her head off in there.  She 
was beside herself.  I'd obviously really hurt her.  And I felt 
utterly repulsed with myself.  It was one of many occurrences that 
eventually got me to thinking that maybe my behavior could stand more 
than a bit of self-examination.

And yes, that revulsion did feel visceral.  But it wasn't the *first* 
visceral response that I had.  The first one was pure and simple 
pleasure.  I *liked* the fact that I'd made her cry.  I *liked* the 
feeling that my words could have that sort of power: the power to 
wound, the power to hurt, the power to strip someone so utterly of 
their self-control that they would actually have to hide away 
somewhere to weep.  It can be really exhilirating, you know, that 
feeling of power.  It doesn't feel bad at all.  It feels *good.*  

Yeah, I know.  That's horrible, isn't it?  But there you have it.

The revulsion...well, the revulsion came a heartbeat later.  It 
certainly came in force when it did come, but it was the secondary 
response, not the primary one, and I don't think that it derived so 
much from pure instinct as it did from a more intellectualized 
extrapolation.  ("If she's crying like that, then I must have 
really hurt her *badly.*  And it wasn't justified at all for me to 
have done that.  She's never really done a thing to me, and she 
wasn't threatening me...and, well really, there was just no valid 
reason to do that at all.  *I* sure as hell wouldn't like it if 
someone made me that unhappy.  Gee, you know, as fun as this 
sort of thing unquestionably is at times, and as personally 
gratifying as I might be finding it, maybe it really *isn't* the way 
that I want to be behaving towards other people.")

Now, obviously there's a considerable difference in degree between 
intimidating others through verbal cruelty and waging a war of terror 
by means of torture and murder.  But then, there's also a 
considerable difference in degree between taking relish in making 
someone flinch with a carefully-aimed quip and reducing someone to 
a snivelling mess with an all-out verbal assault.  And yet in my 
experience, there was no *qualitative* difference between the two.  
The pleasure I took back then in making others flinch was exactly the 
same (if somewhat less intense) than the pleasure I took in making 
people cry.  It was the same thing, really.  All that had really 
changed was the severity of the injury, recognition of which made me 
take stock and actually start to *think,* rather than merely 
continuing to do what I have to admit was, at that stage in my life, 
something that I not only found instinctive, and not only intensely 
pleasurable, but also a great deal of *fun.*

So, um.  Now that nearly 4,000 perfect strangers know all about what 
a rotten person *I* am...


Marina wrote:

> Now, at the time Snape joined the DE's, his moral faculty must've 
> been taking a nap (since George maintains that Snape wasn't 
> ignorant of what he was getting into). *Something* must have 
> happened to make him sit up and start analyzing the philosophical 
> implications of the DE agenda, and I believe that this something 
> was his instinctive revulsion at murder and physical torture. 

Based on his current canonical behavior, specifically his seeming 
disinterest in making even the slightest attempt to curb his 
psychologically sadistic impulses, I tend to suspect that his 
revulsion was not altogether instinctive, although as I said before, 
this is largely a matter of definition.

The ramifications of murder are far more severe than the 
ramifications of verbal cruelty and require more in the way of 
justification.  Psychological abuse shatters people's self-
confidence, erodes their self-esteem, and places them gratifyingly 
under your power.  Killing people indeed places them most 
unquestionably under your power -- but it also makes them *dead.*  I 
don't really think that it requires much in the way of instinct to 
perceive a difference between the two actions and to begin to wonder 
whether you truly have any justification for the latter at *all,* 
other than your own selfish desire for personal gratification.

So in short, I wouldn't be surprised if murder had indeed been one of 
the big wake-up calls.  I think that I just tend to frame the dynamic 
somewhat differently than you do.

But I also see a strong possibility that it could have been a change 
of belief about the justifications themselves, rather than anything 
at all about the severity of the acts that he was committing, that 
might have led him to reconsider.  Even if you believe that physical 
cruelty is wrong, you can still rationalize its commission by resort 
to ends-means justification, and in this way comfortably avoid 
altogether any introspection about whether or not you actually *like* 
what you're doing.  (What does it matter whether or not you *enjoy* 
it?  It simply Has To Be Done, and that's all there is to it.)  If 
you reach the conclusion that your pragmatic justification is 
logically flawed, however, then all you're left with as a rationale 
for your behavior is that you happen to enjoy it -- which is far less 
defensible for anyone with any degree of moral integrity.  

It seems quite possible to me that Snape really did at one time 
believe in all of that purity of blood nonsense, as well perhaps in 
the notion that the status quo was so deeply corrupt (Prank, anyone?) 
that it needed to be overthrown by any means possible.  Any number of 
things could have set him to reconsidering those beliefs, and without 
them, he wouldn't have had any legitimate justification left for what 
he was doing.

Pleased to see, by the way, that you share my preference for viewing 
Snape's old DE companions as people he really did like.  That's my 
own weird little personal Snape fetish, you know.  

> This is exactly what George is about, after all -- the idea that 
> Snape has put principle over sentiment.

Indeed.  

<smiles down at shiny new badge>

> There; I hope that cleared the waters somewhat. 

It did!  Thank you!  And do apologise to George for me, will you, for 
the...er, catechism?  Now he seems afraid of me, and there's really 
no need for him to be.  I'm actually a very *nice* person these days.


-- Elkins, who doesn't like to contemplate what her own life might 
have ended up like if some Evil Dark Wizard had approached *her* at 
the age of sixteen or so.




From conquistas2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 25 08:58:18 2002
From: conquistas2000 at yahoo.com (conquistas2000)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 08:58:18 -0000
Subject: Pre-Hogwarts Harry
Message-ID: <a5cuba+rru7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35707

Hi, I'm new here


How come nobody spilled the beans to Harry that he's a wizard (before
Hogwarts)?

In SS/PS, the wizard folks recognize Harry (Tip their hat, etc..), and
happens often enough that Harry notices it.  In the 10 years, why
didn't any of the wizards/witches strike up a conversaion with Harry
or tell of his origins?

If Mrs. Figgs is really a witch, why didn't she also tell Harry that
he's a wizard?  Maybe she is, but Harry is just too thick headed to
notice.  If she is showing Harry all the cats she owned, in hopes that
Harry will notice all the cats outside his window belongs to Figgs.





From Ali at zymurgy.org  Mon Feb 25 10:14:20 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:14:20 -0000
Subject: A Levels vs N.E.W.Ts
In-Reply-To: <a5cahf+6nu1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5d2ps+gvid@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35708

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "psion_x" <psion_x at y...> wrote:
> Yet another question which I'm not sure is on topic or not.
> N.E.W.Ts are assumed to be the equivilent of A Levels in England 
> (post all the changes).
> 
> Anyway I was wondering what's the TOTAL number of A Levels you can 
> take? Is there a limit, say no more than 6? Or can you take as many 
> as you want? Would someone like Hermione be able to handle more 
than 
> 6?
>  
> Also it seems as I've mentioned before- that at least Charms, DADA, 
> Potions and Transfiguration would be compulsary, for exam Fred and 
> George are still doing DADA in Sixth Year and Hermione tells Ron 
and 
> Harry " ' If only we'd done Human Transfiguration all ready!But I 
> don't think we start that until our Sixth Year.'"
> 


I don't think that there is any canon evidence to show us what the 
NEWTS consist of - so it's easiest to assume that they are like 
A'Levels. In which case, there is theoretically no limit to the 
number of A'levels you can do (certainly over a period of years you 
could do loads). In practice most people do not do more than 4 (3 
being the norm - although people taking science subjects often do 4, 
and in some parts of the country an extra one called "General 
Studies" is fairly standard). Put it this way, you can get into the 
top Universities in the country with 3 good A'Levels.

There are no compulsory subjects at A'Level - Britain is unusual in 
allowing specialisation so early. (This is just beginning to change 
though). I guess at this stage we just have no way of telling what 
the NEWTS consist of, so base your Fanfic on what feels right to you -
 time will tell how right you are.

Ali




From pollux46 at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 25 11:01:46 2002
From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:01:46 -0000
Subject: Harry v. Malfoy/James v.Snape
Message-ID: <a5d5iq+daor@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35709

Eloise wrote:
(quoting)
>> Now personally, I don't think that any additional motivation for 
>> hatred between these two men other than what has already been 
>> provided by canon is in the least bit necessary. 

>At the risk of being heretical......
>The same argument can be made regarding Snape and James - and hence 
by 
>extension, Harry. . .
>Moreover Dumbledore likens the Snape/ James antipathy to that 
between Draco 
>and Harry: in other words, it was *always* there, not something that 
arose 
>later
<snip>
>What I'd like to know is the basis of James' and Snape's animosity 
*at the 
>beginning*. There could be another back story ( and I'll let you 
graft 
>Lollipops on, if you like, but not as a prime motive)
>I've wondered about various things. What if there was a long 
standing 
>animosity between the Snapes and the Potters? Similar to that 
between the 
>Weasleys and the Malfoys. 


Now if I'm reading you right one thing you're heading in the general 
direction of here is that there could be a certain amount of 
similarity between the Harry ?Ron?Draco circle of hate and that of 
James, Sirius and Severus, right? If it's not then my apologies, I 
misinterpreted you. At any rate though it's what I'm getting at so 
bear with me a while.


I do see definite parallels between the two relationships. After all 
as you point out Dumbledore himself, who ought to know both groups 
pretty well, mentions the likeness between the Harry ?Draco and James-
-Severus antipathy as early on as the first book. Couldn't we then, 
after being further informed of the other people involved in the next 
books, stretch this resemblance a little bit further? Consider the 
following corresponding pairs: Harry is James, Ron is Sirius, 
Hermione is Remus and Draco of course is Snape. If we accept this 
view of things it simplifies understanding the Marauder's 
relationship with Snape a great deal. We simply have to follow the 
pattern set out by the rivalry of the present?day generation, of 
which we've had a blow?by?blow account. And this in fact, works out 
pretty well. Allow me to demonstrate:


As you say the hatred between Harry and Malfoy has * always* been 
there. When Harry first meets Draco at Madame Malkins his dislike of 
him is almost instant and mounting every second. Harry starts by 
likening him to Dudley and finishes by hurrying off in relief to be 
rid of his company. What we've got here is a head?on clash of 
character, but nothing truly personal. Harry just doesn't like Malfoy 
and Malfoy, though initially actually rather keen to make friends 
with Harry (I can help you get in with the right sort, blah, blah, 
blah. . .), quickly discovers he doesn't like Harry either. And 
that's all there is to it really. They're just not each other's * 
type*, pure and simple. It's not personal. There's no harrowing 
vendetta behind it. They hate what the other stands for, more than 
the other as an individual. The sniping comments and dueling 
challenges and train romping all come after that. They're the natural 
follow?ups, the results of an instinctive aversion. And so it is with 
James and Snape as well. Snape hated James because James was the 
strutting Quidditch Cup Winner, not because of anything specific that 
James did to him. 


So up till this point I'm nodding along merrily with you. But then 
you go and confuse me. You say you'd like to know what there was at 
the beginning of their animosity. Err, but haven't you just stated 
that there was * nothing*? You liken the supposed Potter/Snape family 
hatred to the Weasley/ Malfoy one. Ahh, you see this is where we 
disagree. Because the way I see it indeed there need not be anything 
behind James v. Severus. But Sirius v. Severus? That's a whole 
different kettle of fish. (One by the way cheerfully bubbling away 
over the stove in the C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. kitchens, after 
being hauled in by a seriously overexcited Captain Charis Julia, 
who's apparently mistaken playing pirates for playing cowboys and is 
romping around on deck brandishing her fishing rod as a lasso in most 
alarming fashion and slapping the sides of the ship yelling "Giddy up 
me lass!" at the top of her voice. But that's neither here nor there; 
This is not a shipping post.)


I think Sirius and Snape hate each other much in the same manner Ron 
hates Draco. In this case the Harry/James v. Malfoy/Snape criteria is 
turned on it's head. Instead of the dislike being the reason for the 
sneers and fights, the sneers and fights are the reason behind the 
dislike. Ron and Draco start they're acquaintance with an exchange of 
insults that would have evolved into fisticuffs too, if Scabbers 
hadn't intervened. In actual fact they are already poised for combat 
long before they even meet by their family's ongoing conflict. In 
other words, their dislike is deeply personal right from the start. 
What's more personal than family or more aggravating than gibes at 
their expense?


Of course Ron hates the principles Draco personifies just as much as 
Harry does. And Harry's dislike of Draco is quickly fortified by 
personal grudges. But for Ron the rivalry ?always IMO?touches a raw 
nerve that Harry doesn't feel. Hence it is always Ron who lashes out 
first at Malfoy, Ron who's quick at drawing his wand when Malfoy 
appears, Ron who smoulders resentfully afterwards. Harry's forever 
the one holding him back. In fact it would be fair to assume that, 
had Harry and Ron got a werewolf friend, Ron would be the one to set 
Malfoy up for an interview with him and Harry the one rushing to 
rectify the situation.


This is actually one of the reasons I'm so keen to give Sirius a 
particular grievance against Snape. It seems to me there must be 
something behind his open (pre?PoA always) hostility for him. And I 
suppose a family feud could work there, except that it's already been 
used and enough similarities are enough. So personally I prefer the 
cherchez la femme option. But, each to his own.


And last we've got Hermione and Lupin. Don't their attitudes towards 
their enemies bear a resemblance? They share the mantra of "Ignore, 
ignore". Be polite, calm, dignified. And at the same time I'm sure 
that even even Remus lost his temper once in a while and gave Snape a 
good punch in the face when his "We've got meat for lunch today Lupin?
too bad it's cooked, huh?" taunts got too much.


Having said all this however I do hope that Neville won't turn out to 
be a second Peter. That really would be taking it too far. And 
besides, it would completely mess up the Toadkeeper theory, which I 
am rather partial to! (Charis salutes Captain Cindy respectfully and 
asks if she can reserve a seat in the lounge ?that's all I'm good for 
as far as this rowboat is concerned: lounging around; unfortunately 
nothing new to add for support? but has to check out what Big Bang is 
first before she boards because she missed that)


Charis Julia.





From miss_hollygolightly at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 25 10:27:54 2002
From: miss_hollygolightly at hotmail.com (adhara_black)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:27:54 -0000
Subject: Scabbers/Pettigrew
In-Reply-To: <4061302600.20020224140839@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <a5d3ja+jkbs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35710

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne <siskiou at e...> wrote:
> 
> Just been wondering about Scabbers/Pettigrew.
> 
> Why do you think he chose the Weasley family to hide out
> with all this time?
> 
> Just coincidence? Or could he learn a lot while living there
> as a family pet, assuming his life as a rat didn't take away
> too many of his faculties?
> 
Hi,
I think it was important for him to be living with a wizarding family 
so he could keep up with what's going on and more importantly, learn 
of any news about Voldy. Only his return to power would allow 
Pettigrew to stop living the life of a rat all the time. The 
Weasley's are particularly suitable because Arthur Weasley works for 
the MoM, so he'd be privvy to confidential information. Being Ron's 
pet also allowed him to be at Hogwarts and keep track of Dumbledore I 
guess. 
Any other thoughts?

Adhara






From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Mon Feb 25 13:05:28 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:05:28 -0000
Subject: Pre-Hogwarts Harry
In-Reply-To: <a5cuba+rru7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5dcqo+outq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35711

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "conquistas2000" <conquistas2000 at y...> wrote:
> Hi, I'm new here
> 
> 
> How come nobody spilled the beans to Harry that he's a wizard (before
> Hogwarts)?
> 
> In SS/PS, the wizard folks recognize Harry (Tip their hat, etc..), and
> happens often enough that Harry notices it.  In the 10 years, why
> didn't any of the wizards/witches strike up a conversaion with Harry
> or tell of his origins?

Because (1) they assumed that he knew he was a wizard and knew the whole 
story and (2) they encountered him in public Muggle places, where such a 
conversation would have been inappropriate.  Only the most subtle 
acknowledgment of their respect for Harry was possible in front of all those 
muggles.

Mrs. Figg never talked to Harry about being a witch because, especially when he 
was younger, he might have blown her cover; she's obviously passing herself off 
as a muggle to her muggle neighbors, including the Dursleys.  If Harry had known 
she was a witch, and had let the Dursleys know this, they would have severed 
their relationship with her.




From Edblanning at aol.com  Mon Feb 25 14:28:16 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:28:16 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry v. Malfoy/James v.Snape
Message-ID: <179.4245d33.29aba400@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35712

Charis Julia comments on my querying whether there is something behind (as in 
a backstory) the Snape James hatred


> As you say the hatred between Harry and Malfoy has * always* been 
> there. When Harry first meets Draco at Madame Malkins his dislike of 
> him is almost instant and mounting every second. Harry starts by 
> likening him to Dudley and finishes by hurrying off in relief to be 
> rid of his company. What we've got here is a head?on clash of 
> character, but nothing truly personal. Harry just doesn't like Malfoy 
> and Malfoy, though initially actually rather keen to make friends 
> with Harry (I can help you get in with the right sort, blah, blah, 
> blah. . .), quickly discovers he doesn't like Harry either. And 
> that's all there is to it really. They're just not each other's * 
> type*, pure and simple. It's not personal. There's no harrowing 
> vendetta behind it. They hate what the other stands for, more than 
> the other as an individual. The sniping comments and dueling 
> challenges and train romping all come after that. They're the natural 
> follow?ups, the results of an instinctive aversion. And so it is with 
> James and Snape as well. Snape hated James because James was the 
> strutting Quidditch Cup Winner, not because of anything specific that 
> James did to him. 
> 
> 
> So up till this point I'm nodding along merrily with you. But then 
> you go and confuse me. You say you'd like to know what there was at 
> the beginning of their animosity. Err, but haven't you just stated 
> that there was * nothing*? You liken the supposed Potter/Snape family 
> hatred to the Weasley/ Malfoy one. Ahh, you see this is where we 
> disagree. Because the way I see it indeed there need not be anything 
> behind James v. Severus. But Sirius v. Severus? That's a whole 
> different kettle of fish. 

Fair comments all, but I suppose I'm not suggesting *exact* parallels in the 
relationships of the respective trios ( Snape/ James/Sirius; 
Draco/Harry/Ron). I think that would be a little unsubtle. What I'm 
suggesting more is that in each case, two of the three are closely identified 
with each other, so that for instance,Harry is identified with that mud-blood 
loving clan, the Weasleys and James is associated with that dreadful 
prankster, Sirius. Each one gets tainted by all the perceived imperfections 
of the other. ( and yes, there's Hermione and Lupin, I'm just keeping things 
simple)

Now yes, Harry immediately and instincively takes against Draco, recognising 
him for the nasty, stuck up predjudiced little...well, to use canon...git 
that he is. But Draco doesn't immediately take against *him* does he? Not 
until Harry makes it clear that he values Ron's ..er..values above his and 
Draco realises *who he is*. So there are, IMO, two backstories to the 
Harry/Draco animosity: the fact that he has made clear his loyalty to a 
family Draco has been taught to despise and the fact that he is the one 
responsible for the Dark Lord's downfall. I don't think Draco can be totally 
unaware of his father's support for Voldemort, even at this stage of the 
game, can he?
(Actually, I would be rather interested to know how much people think that 
Draco *does* know.)

However, the impression I get is that other people think that there *does* 
have to be more than the Quidditch-Champion-Strut behind Snape's animosity to 
James and by extension to Harry...... Enter Lily. I just feel that Lily 
enters a little late to be a prime cause. I honestly think that Snape has 
*plenty* of reason to hate Harry and that his hatred of James is a 
significant part of it. I was just speculating that there could be a reason 
why this animosity arose in the first place, other than instinctive dislike.

Eloise


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




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Mon Feb 25 14:31:25 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:31:25 -0000
Subject: Snape: non-Vampire, emotions vs principles
In-Reply-To: <008701c1bdc6$3e627a20$df30c2cb@price>
Message-ID: <a5dhrt+qujg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35713

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> wrote:
 
> S.I.A.M.E.S.E.V.I.R.U.S. (Snape Is Already Mysterious Enough, So
Extra Vampiricism Is Rendered Unquestionably Superfluous)
> 

It must be a very contagious virus; I have an advanced case of it
myself.


> I also sniff at suggestions that Snape is a principle driven
intellectual who wouldn't let an emotional triviality like Love Of
Lily sway him.  Snape's personal vendetta against Harry a principled,
intellectual, unemotional one??  Snape's reactions to Sirius, from the
shrieking about his escape to the snarling, reluctant handshake,
purely intellectual and principle driven??  Snape being accused of
disloyalty to Dumbledore by Crouch/Moody, gripping the chair when
Ginny gets taken by Riddle, sweeping into his first Potions class
spouting poetry, a man divorced from emotional reactions? <

Ah, but SWEETGEORGIANISM makes no such extreme claims.  Just like the
sailors of LOLLIPOPS do not maintain that every single aspect of
Snape's life is centered entirely around his love for Lily,
Georgianists do not imagine that all of Snape's behavior is governed
solely by the cold, clear light of his intellect.  Where's the fun in
that?  Where's the angst, the tension, the gut-wrenching internal
conflict that we Georgianists find so attractive?  Of course Snape is
a man of intense and violent emotion.  That's what makes it so tasty
when his emotions steer him one way while his principles point in an
entirely different direction.  That's what makes it such an impressive
achievement when he chooses to take the principled path.  He hates
Harry with a deep, unreasoning hatred, but protects the little brat
anyway.  He wants nothing more than to give the unconscious Sirius a
boot to the head and hand him over to the Dementors, but instead loads
him on a stretcher and floats him into the castle.  Why, it's all so
emotional it's positively operatic! (With Sirius as the tenor and
Snape as the baritone, naturally.)  In fact, it's an opera in...

E SHARP: Emotional Snape Has to Abide by Rigorous Principles

(Yes, I know there's no E-sharp in Muggle music, but they have it in
Wizard music, okay?  Sheesh.)

I'm fairly sure that Snape's original decision to join the DEs was
emotionally driven, and that his current ability to override his
feelings when it really matters was something that he had to learn the
hard way at a later date.  It doesn't come naturally to him.  And
based on what you post below, your opinions on the subject aren't all
*that* different from mine:

Tabouli:
> What I see in Snape is a man whose emotions and principles are in
continual conflict (similar to but not quite the same as what others
have said about his natural tendencies towards evil warring with his
better moral nature).  In the time where the books are set, he seems
to have struck an uneasy balance, where he lets his emotions win the
little battles, but lets his principles rule over the more important
domains of life and death.  In the classroom, he lets his disgust at
weakness and incompetence get the better of him, and bullies Neville
cruelly, and lets his grudge against Harry manifest as sneering and
victimisation.  However, in life and death matters, his alliance to
the Good Side triumphs... he discreetly saves Harry from Quirrell,
puts children who've attacked him and even arch-enemy Sirius on
stretchers, risks his life to spy for Dumbledore.
> 

Seems like we mostly disagree about matters of degree and nuance. 
(And Lily).

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From Edblanning at aol.com  Mon Feb 25 14:43:54 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:43:54 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pettigrew/Scabbers: coward or mole?
Message-ID: <12e.d0ae72b.29aba7aa@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35714


Uncmark

> My niece asked me a question about Pettigrew/Scabbers that I thought 
> I'd pass on to the group.
> 
> Why didn't Pettigrew support Voldemort in SSt or ChofS? I would think 
> even a semi-skilled animagus would have made a crucial difference 
> tipping the balence of the battle to evil.
> 

This is answered in canon (PoA,  p271, UK version): or at least we have 
Sirius' answer. The first sentence is the most crucial. Remember, this is 
from a man who knows him.

'Because you never did anything for anyone unless you could see what was in 
it for you. Voldemort's been in hiding for twelve years, they say he's half 
dead. You weren't about to commit murder right under Albus Dumbledore's nose, 
for a wreck of a wizard who'd lost all his powers, were you? You'd want to be 
sure he was the biggest bully in the playground before you went back to him, 
wouldn't you? why else did you find a wizard family to take you in? Keeping 
an ear out for news, weren't you, Peter? Just in case your old protector 
regained strength and it was safe to rejoin him...'

Eloise.


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




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Mon Feb 25 15:25:22 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:25:22 -0000
Subject: Predestination Re: Harry v. Malfoy/James v.Snape
In-Reply-To: <a5d5iq+daor@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5dl12+kvc6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35715

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "charisjulia" <pollux46 at h...> wrote:

<Snip some very interesting discussion about the parallels between
Marauders vs Snape and HRH vs Draco

> Having said all this however I do hope that Neville won't turn out
to 
> be a second Peter. That really would be taking it too far. 

I certainly agree, not just because I'm very fond of Neville, but also
because I have a lot of distaste for the idea that the HP universe is
stuck in some sort of vicious cycle of fate, with the current Hogwarts
generation doomed to inevitably repeat all the mistakes of the
previous one.  This is why I keep hoping for some sympathetic
Slytherins in future books, too.  The idea that all those kids are
doomed to become Death Eaters just because their parents were Death
Eaters is just... well... too EWWWW to be TREWWWW for me.

And I do think there are enough differences all around to indicate
that history is not repeating itself.  Harry is like James in a lot of
ways, but he's different in a lot of significant ways, too.  He lacks
James' easy confidence, and he's neither a prankster nor a
trouble-maker.  The only time he ever breaks a rule for fun is when he
sneaks in Hogsmeade in PoA, and I think it's fair to say he learned
his lesson after that one.  (It seems, BTW, that Fred and George serve
to fulfill the "prankster" function of the Marauders, since HRH are
falling down on the job in that respect.)  Draco is not the greasy,
unpopular, Dark Magic-spouting geek that Snape apparently was.  And
the whole HRH dynamic seems different from the Marauders.  With the
Marauders I got the general sense that while James and Sirius may have
been the ringleaders, the focus of the group revolved around providing
a support system for Lupin.  But the HRH focus is not all about
supporting Hermione (who's doing just fine for herself, thank you);
it's about supporting Harry.  And Neville isn't tied in to it as
closely as Peter was.

So I think there are ground to be optimistic that Neville will not
turn traitor, and Ron will not make any well-intentioned but misguided
decisions that get Harry killed.  What this says about Draco is
ambiguous, though.  Say he doesn't follow the exact same path as Snape
-- does that mean he'll never go evil in the first place, or that
he'll go evil and stay evil?

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From ladjables at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 25 15:35:15 2002
From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 07:35:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups]  Re: Musings on Draco/corrigendum
In-Reply-To: <a4q652+va7r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020225153515.70204.qmail@web20405.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35716

I'm not a Draco/Hermione shipper, and I don't think
JKR is taking us down that road at all.  But I wasn't
clear on this issue so let me try to unpack my
thoughts:
--- uncmark <uncmark at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I posted on my Nephew's idea on a Draco/Hermione
> match because he  says Draco warned Hermione at the
> World Cup.  As I remember it, Draco warned Harmione
> to "Watch out if you don't  want everyone to see
> your knickers!" 
 
 And in response I wrote:
> uncmark, I think your nephew's very clever.  You
> should listen to him, he knows how teenage boys
> think!  I remember reading this and thinking exactly
> along the same lines.  Well, I'm not a 13 year old 
> boy, but I did wonder for a minute if Draco had 
> started to notice Hermione as a girl first, and a 
> mudblood second.
> ------- 
> Draco's prejudice doesn't preclude normal, human,
> adolescent  emotions. Hormones, those hormones, 
> determine feelings for the opposite/same sex!  It's
> not rare for a prejudiced teen to have a crush on 
> someone from another race/ethnicity/gender, because
> he simply can't help the way he feels!  
 

To which uncmark replied:
> Excuse me? You consider Draco's hormones on the same
> level as caring for her?  

Nope, I do not consider Draco's hypothetical
attraction to Hermione the same as caring for
Hermione.  I only meant Draco may have noticed that
Hermione was a mudblood GIRL, not just a "mudblood". 
You use the Ron/Draco contrast well; Ron's upbringing
lets him recognize the treatment of the Roberts'
family as muggle abuse, but don't make me get into
that Uranus joke-teenage boys can be quite crude when
they begin to notice the opposite sex, and I think
your nephew may have recognized this.  Rather than
being strictly racist in that instance, Draco's
referral to Hermione's knickers could imply he is
looking at Hermione differently.

Someone brought up Ron's and Draco's reactions to
Hermione at the ball; they both notice the same pretty
girl, but while the former gets jealous when Hermione
is the recipient of Krum's attentions, the latter just
stares and later makes his notorious "all death to
muldbloods" comment.  So which is it, is Draco
attracted to Hermione or does he want the mudlood
dead?  Well, maybe both.

Draco's supposed attraction to a mudblood girl doesn't
mean he wants to be with her or cares for her in any
way.  He may hate himself for feeling this attraction,
and then direct this hatred to her, enabling him to
see her as a plaything to be used and tortured,
because she's a mudblood.  

uncmark, referring to Draco's mention of Hermione's
undergarments:
>The incident brought to  mind a son of a Grand Wizard
>reveling as his fathers group of Klansman molested a
>black woman. If he warned a black girl that she would
>be next would that show any feelings but the basest?

But do those base feelings exclude attraction?  Who
says these feelings of hatred aren't sparked by
attraction, attraction that is twisted by prejudice?  
 
Hence:
> "on the flip side, realization of such feelings may
> lead to a  more virulent form of prejudice, 
> especially if the person experiences self-loathing,
> and/or is even rejected by the object of his 
> affections.  The suppression of anger and shame in a
> prejudiced mind must be like a powder keg about to 
> go off.
 
I said (admittedly offhandedly):
>So while D/H isn't impossible, Hermione could also
>find herself the victim of unrequited love!
>Talk about putting a fatal spin on the
>Hermione/Draco romance.

uncmark replied:  
>Have you forgotten Chapter 12 of ChofS? Harry & Ron
>as polyjuiced versions of Crabbe and Goyle
>questioned Malfoy about the heir of Slytherin. Malfoy
>knew nothing definite about the heir, but 
>boasted "But I know one thing -- last time the
>Chamber of secrets was opened, a Mudblood died. So I
>bet it's a matter of time before one of 
>them's killed this time.... I hope it's Granger," he
>said in relish"
> 
>Doesn't sound too subtle or hidden. Draco would like
>H dead. 

Except I think this is before Draco "notices" Hermione
in GoF, but if you follow my reasoning, he may want
her dead now more than ever...
 
On Draco's redemption, I mused:

> Since redemption is about delivering from evil and
> all that, who would make a better candidate than 
> Draco, ignorant child of aristocratic bigots?  He 
> is, after all, still a child, and as far as I'm 
> concerned, still teetering on the precipice
> overlooking damnation.   

to which uncmark replied:
> Still a child? In Tacoma Washington last year a man
>was beaten to death by a gang of kids ages 11-17 and
>they were discussing charging all of them as adults 
>(I think the youngest charged as an adult was 13) 
  

You're right of course, children can commit heinous
crimes, as your example illustrates, but Draco hasn't
beaten anyone to death.  I'm not excusing him for
being a prejudiced little twerp, but he's not
Voldemort, so far, he's just been mouthing off.    

uncmark: 
> I think her treatment of the Malfoys might be JKR's
> greatest challenge. It's easy to write racists, It's
> hard to write multi-dimensional characters. > 

Malcolm X experienced a volte-face after visiting
Mecca and renounced his racist views towards whites. 
I personally would like to see more complex,
prejudiced characters, because they're more realistic,
and teach a far more useful lesson than caricatures,
but I don't know if that's how JKR intends to treat
the Malfoys.  Perhaps we should keep an eye on the
Dursleys instead.
 
Ama/ladjables

Corrigendum for mudblood as epithet post: Draco uses
"mudblood" 4 times in CoS, not once.  I suppose that
theory is ruined, dagnabbit...






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com



From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Mon Feb 25 16:02:42 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:02:42 -0000
Subject: Fudge is Way Evil and I have the acronyms to prove it
In-Reply-To: <a5bt3b+mvil@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5dn72+qloo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35717

Dicentra said:

Is this the smile of a man who believes his leg is being pulled?
Perhaps. But Harry would have recognized such a smile. He would have
interpreted Fudge's smile correctly and the narrator would have said
so. But instead the smile is *strange.* What if it's the smile of a
man who's heard the news he's been waiting to hear, but is having a
hard time repressing his true emotions. Such a smile could only appear
odd to Harry, because Harry doesn't guess the truth. But our beloved
Auror--er--Author does know, and she's perfectly willing to drop bread
crumbs for those wise enough to see the trail.

Eloise said:

Perhaps, though it may equally be the nervous, disbelieving smile of
the man who's just heard the very last thing he wanted to hear. Not
all of Voldemort's former supporters are delighted to have him back,
are they? What would people like the Lestranges want to do to him,
particularly if they knew he had once been a supporter of Voldemort.

Dicentra responds:

I'll buy this as an acceptable variation on FIDEDIGNO-either way,
Fudge is reacting to Voldemort's return not as someone in the Old Gang
but as a covert supporter.

Dicentra says: 

...but as a side note, it means they weren't there when Sirius Black
was first put into Azkaban, nor were they there when the Aurors were
catching DEs during and shortly after Voldemort's Reign of Terror. It
also means that the dementors were preying mostly on Voldemort's
supporters, formerly their allies. Creepy.

Pippin says: 

Fudge didn't get to be Minister until *after* Crouch had been
discredited, his son was found out and his wife and son had "died."
Sirius, in GoF ch 27 p529," ..so Cornelius Fudge got the top job."
There were already Dementors at the Pensieve trials, bringing people
from Azkaban, so they were already there when Fudge took over. I think
Dumbledore's words are only to convince Fudge that he'll be held
responsible, as the politician who "lost" Azkaban, if the Dementors
defect.

Dicentra replies:

RATS!! I thought I was onto something interesting, there. However,
that little exchange between Fudge and Dumbledore seems to imply that
the dementors were not always at Azkaban, ne? So when did they arrive
and under what circumstances? Unless this is another flint, the canon
is silent. WAIT!!! If the dementors are ardent Voldemort supporters,
what were they doing at Azkaban during Voldie's Reign of Terror? It
appears that The Good Guys ultimately had control over Azkaban, or it
would be filled to brimming with Voldemort's ENEMIES, not his
supporters. What's up with that?

Dicentra says:

So, Black was laughing, was he? Do we hear that from Sirius when he
tells his side of the story? Does he say, "as soon as Peter
disappeared the absurdity of it all struck me and I couldn't help but
laugh?" No! Why would Sirius be laughing? I maintain that he wasn't
laughing at all--maybe sobbing, maybe convulsing in agony, maybe
standing there, stunned, but not laughing like a madman. I maintain
that Fudge willfully inserted that detail into his version of events
to make Sirius look bad. 

Eloise says:

No, sorry I agree with those who think that Sirius *was* hysterical,
and with good reason. Weren't there other witnesses? (shaky ground as
it doesn't seem to matter really in the framing-of-Sirius scenario)

Holly responds:

...I must strongly protest against Sirius being branded 'hysterical'
(although he had every reason to be).

Dicentra chimes in:

Hear! hear! There may have been other witnesses, but we don't hear
their story, only Fudge's. Barty Crouch was there, but he's dead now
(and he never shows up in PoA), and all the muggles can't remember a
thing. I don't know exactly what Sirius's demeanor was, but it wasn't
what Fudge says it was.

Eloise signs off:

Eloise, (who'd been wondering where her pipe and cape had got to.
Still, you're welcome to the pipe; I didn't get on with it either.)

Eloise later demands:

Dicentra, I want that cape and pipe back. Now. I can't do dramatic
swirls with only a deerstalker.

Dicentra responds:

Hey, the pipe and the cape go to whoever is making a dramatic
revelation at the time (rehashed or not). It just turned up whilst I
was composing the FIDEDIGNO speech. Honest. When you have something
important to say, it will turn up at your side. :D

Eloise continues:

P.S. I've always wanted to say how cool I think your name is.

Dicentra answers:

::blush:: Yes, it's a cool name-that's why I chose it! And 40 points
to Gryffindor if you can tell me what Dicentra spectabilis alba means.

Pippin signs off:

F.U.D.G.E.F.A.C.T.O.R. 
Fudge, Underestimating Dementors' Gross Evil, Feared Acting, Choosing
Temporizing Over Reform

Dicentra replies:

Yes, yes, you've got an acronym in your support. But I've got FIVE!!! 

FIDEDIGNO: Fudge Is Definitely An Evil-Doer-It's Not Generally Obvious

FIE Fudge. Is. Evil.

FISHFINGERS: Fudge's Incompetent Spinelessness Hides Foul Intentions
Governing Every Regressive Step

FIEONGOODNESS: Fudge Is Evil: One Nasty Guy Opposes Old Dumbledore,
Nixes Even Severus Snape

NEWLABOURCONSERVATIVE: Nefarious Evil Wizard Likes Appeasing Bad Old
Unmentionable Ruler. Cack-handed Official Not Simply Erring Randomly:
Versatile Actor Truly Is Voldemort's Employee (never mind where this
came from)

I win.





From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu  Mon Feb 25 16:12:40 2002
From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:12:40 -0000
Subject: Marauders learning to be animagi....
In-Reply-To: <002d01c1bc43$d79b6280$3e9abc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>
Message-ID: <a5dnpo+6krt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35718

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Felicia Rickmann" <felicia.rickmann at d...>
wrote:
>
> > > This really intrigues me. My initial, gut reaction says that, were
> > he to have started his work towards becoming an animagus when he was a
> > boy, he might well have been able to transform into something
other than a
> > wolf, something that better suited his nature.


So why do you feel that his lycanthropy makes his ability to change
forms different, now as opposed to then?

Is it because the wolf is so much a part of his nature, or is it
because lycanthropy and self-transfiguration can't work together, or
is it some other theory?

<snip> So I  would think that
> while the actual process of becoming an animal is
>  proably a magical skill that could be learned, the magic takes the
> personality traits of an animagus into account and governs to a
large extent
> what the person turns into.  As Remus is a werewolf, not an
>  animagus as James, Sirius and Peter were (who did it to keep him
> company...) I'm not sure how much of an animagus discussion can
legitimately
> be applied to him.
>

But can you elabourate on that? I began this discussion assuming that
it is speculative, that the personality is a huge factor in the form
of the transformation. Certainly, there may not be any reason for
Remus to attempt the transformation, but does that necessarily mean
that he cannot? What is it about Animagus and lycanthropy that makes
you think they are mutually exclusive?

That's really what I was asking with question one, and if they are NOT
mutually exclusive, then what aspects of Remus's true nature, not
governed by the wolf, would come into play in the transformation?

Jake suggested a bunny--I actually think he would be more likely a fox
or a smaller wildcat. While I think he's reconciled a lot of the wolf
in order to control it, I don't believe that the wolf is the beginning
and end of Lupin's character. Therefore, there must be enough
personality that is Lupin's and not the accident of his affliction,
that could be drawn on for transformation into an Animagus.

Speculation of this kind calls for a little more suspension of
disbelief. Again, as Felicia pointed out, there is no reason for Lupin
to actually attempt to become an Animagus--at least not yet. But to
answer Kyrstyne's question, there really aren't many similarities
between the Animagus transformation and the disease of lycanthropy as
they are presented to us in the books.

Animagus: Difficult and advanced magic, regulated by the Ministry.
Lists are kept of Animagi, their animal forms, and descriptions of
their markings. Can be reversed by force of a spell. The Animagus
transforms back and forth at will otherwise. Painless once mastered.
Animagi retain their ability to think as humans while in animal form.
No particulat stigma to being an Animagus--in fact it is regarded as
an achievement to be envied. Evidently magic accounts for the changes
in mass, since relatively large people (Rita, Peter) can become very
small animals (beetle, rat), presumably affected by personality or
core character issues.

Lycanthropy: Acquired by being bitten. Regulated by the Ministry,
including a support services office, a Registry, and a capture unit.
Considered dangerous and difficult to control. Prejudicial treatment
of werewolves makes it difficult for them to maintain a normal life in
wizarding society. Transformation occurs only upon the night of the
full moon, and is involuntary. Also painful and physically draining.
Werewolves do not retain their ability to think as humans while in
wolf form and specifically target humans as prey. No mention of other
forms of lycanthropes (werecats, werebears, werebats, etc.), so
presumably always wolves. Mass is apparently converted, though not
necessarily with any correlation to human size (we don't know how
large Lupin's wolf form is compared to his human one).

They don't seem to be very similar, in fact.

And heck, if Remus *did* turn into an Animagus wolf, wouldn't that
make his lycanthropy easier to disguise?

Seriously, I'm not suggesting this will happen. I'm more interested in
what people think about the nature of these two forms of magic: one
voluntary and character-driven; the other involuntary and apparently
static (always a wolf). How do they relate to one another? Is Felicia
right, that being a werewolf means that he would fail to achieve the
Animagus transformation, just because the "wolfishness" of his nature
would set up a conflict that the magic couldn't resolve? Or is Jake
closer, that the rigid control Remus exerts over his wolf would force
the magic in a different direction, as far away from a wolf as it can get?

Or is it somewhere in between, where the wolf may have become part of
his nature, but the magic can somehow distinguish between the "edge"
that is part of turning into a ravening beast once per month and the
"edge" that was always there, that was always part of Lupin maybe even
before he got bitten?

 Hm. Not that I'm trying to lead your answers, or anything. But I'd
like to hear some elabouration on these thoughts.

Gwen




From john at walton.vu  Mon Feb 25 16:43:24 2002
From: john at walton.vu (John Walton)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:43:24 +0000
Subject: ADMIN: The HPFGU Humongous Bigfile
Message-ID: <B8A01A2C.B247%john@walton.vu>

No: HPFGUIDX 35719

Dear HPFGUers,

In an effort to make the group more navigable and to give you all the
information you'd ever need about HPFGU in one handy document, the Magical
Moderators, List Elves and Poltergeists present (*lights dim, spotlights
play across screen, drum rolls*):

The HPforGrownups Humongous Bigfile
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin

"And there'll be little flags on the hoods, with HB on them -"
"- for Humongous Bighead," said Fred.
Everyone except Percy and Mrs. Weasley snorted into their pudding.
????????--Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Combining the group's Admin Files, Welcome Message, Netiquette File, Common
Abbreviations & Shorthand File, Resources, Links and Website
recommendations, the Humongous Bigfile contains anything and everything
you'll ever want to know about HPFGU or the HP fandom for grownups, and is a
must-read for all members.

Please take a look over it, and feel free to email the Mods if you have any
additions, suggestions or if you notice anything out of the ordinary :D

Magically yours,

--John
__________________________________
John, Mod With Rock #47
For the HPforGrownups Moderator Team
HPforGrownups-Owner at yahoogroups.com

Please read our Humongous Bigfile!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin




From cindysphynx at home.com  Mon Feb 25 17:57:35 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:57:35 -0000
Subject: The Big Bangers and Neville
In-Reply-To: <a5cj92+js6u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5dtuf+n5me@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35720

Elkins wrote:

> The *last* time we tried to discuss Neville, I seem
> to remember that you gave me my ring back.  And all of the love 
> letters.  *And* you mocked my SYCOPHANTS badge.

I thought we decided we could still be friends.  Besides, I see that 
you have rebounded to George, and deep down I'm very happy for you.  
Really, I am.  I'll just have to remember what we had.  Or at least, 
what I *thought* we had. 

Elkins wrote (about the best way to have Neville's backstory be Big):

> We *want* him traumatized.
> We want poor little toddler Neville, huddling in the closet while
> the Evil Death Eeaters horribly torture Mum and Dad.  And do you 
> know *why* we want it that way?
> 
> Because it's a Very Big Bang.  *That's* why.
> 

Oh, you want to play "My Neville Backstory Is Bigger Than Yours," 
huh?  OK, I'm in. 

I sense a serious misunderstanding about exactly how Big the Reverse 
Memory Charm can be.  Neville as a small toddler who later gets a 
Reverse Memory Charm is Big.  Heck, it's *Huge*.  Let me set the 
scene.

Neville is very young when the attacks happen.  Mrs. Lestrange 
bursts through the door and overpowers the Longbottoms.  Neville is 
cowering in the corner. Anyone who has a toddler knows they are very 
good at cowering.  They cower at the slightest provocation, in 
fact.  So you can certainly have the drama of toddler Neville 
cowering in the corner, flinching, sucking his thumb, whatever you 
want. 

Moody arrives to find his good friend Frank a broken shell of a 
man.  The same Frank who saved Moody's life in the ambush.  Moody is 
broken up over this, and he soon realizes there are no witnesses and 
no clues.  Crouch Sr. arrives and is so hell-bent on catching dark 
wizards for his own political advancement that he demands the 
Reverse Memory Charm on Neville.  Crouch Sr. is so heartless that he 
orders the Reverse Memory Charm even though it will damage Neville's 
memory *and* cause him to remember the torture vividly, which he 
otherwise wouldn't remember.  Crouch Sr. isn't interested in 
traditional Auror investigation techniques; he doesn't have time for 
that.  He needs a Big arrest right now.

Moody is torn.  His Big Bad Auror self wants to use the boy to make 
a big arrest and avenge Frank.  But Moody also knows Frank would 
never want Neville harmed to avenge him.  Besides, if they hold off, 
maybe they can catch the bad guys some other way, without harming 
Neville.  Ah, savor the internal conflict.  That scene has all sorts 
of heavy implications about Crouch's abuse of power (and Moody's gut-
wrenching internal conflict) and is mighty Big.  Moody goes along 
and puts the Reverse Memory Charm on Neville and Neville identifies 
the Lestranges.

Elkins wrote:

>What is all this wishy-washy "oh, let's keep him only
> an infant, because that way he could never have really been 
> traumatized much anyway" nonsense?  What is all this "Oh, we can't 
> give the poor kid a suppressed traumatic memory -- that's just so 
> ugly, it's all so *crooo-el* -- so let's just make it a Reverse 
> Memory Charm instead" tripe?

Whaaaat?  No, no, no.  The Reverse Memory Charm doesn't spare 
Neville pain.  It is the Memory Charm people who are giving Neville 
this handy Memory Charm so he won't have to think about what 
happened when he was a young child.  Oh, isn't that just so nice and 
merciful and sweet -- Neville is feeling blue and we made it all 
better and fixed Neville's boo-boo with a Memory Charm.  

No, no, no.  Reverse Memory Charm Neville suffers, you see.  I'm 
giving Neville a *tremendous* amount of pain.  I'm enhancing his 
memory so that he hears the shrieks of his parents *every darn 
day*.  Not only has the Reverse Memory Charm wrecked his memory for 
things like where he left his toad, it has caused him to repeatedly 
experience his parents' torture in Dolby and Technocolor.  Reverse 
Memory Charm Neville has to be Tough to avoid losing his mind 
completely, if you ask me.  

I like to be inclusive, though.  If you like, Neville can be a 
SYCOPHANT in the making.  Add the pressure of ToadKeeper where 
Neville has to be strong enough to restore his parents, and you have 
cinematic nitroglycerin.

Elkins again:

> Look, Neville at the Court Hearing is a *Dud,* okay?  You know it, 
I 
> know it. Everyone knows it.  It lacks drama.  It lacks pizzazz.  
It 
> lacks oomph.  It lacks any sturm-und-drang at all, frankly.  An 
> infant gurgles his way merrily through a scene of unspeakable 
> atrocity, but is later enchanted to be able to point one pudgy 
finger 
> at the Lestranges and blurt "Gah?"

OK, I have to admit that there would *not* be a scene in which 
chubby-faced Neville starts speaking with Darth Vadar's voice and 
gives an interview with Moody.  You know, the kind of scene where 
the kid's mouth never matches up with the adult dialogue.  That 
scene is all off-camera; Moody tells us about it.  

And don't forget about wizarding justice.  There *is* no big trial 
scene in the wizarding world because they seem to have no use for 
proper trials.  Neville doesn't convict the Lestranges; he just 
identifies them so Moody can track them down.

Besides, with Reverse Memory Charm Neville, I get something *Bigger* 
than a garden-variety trial scene.  I get Moody, on the strength of 
Neville's identification, hunting down the Lestranges like dogs in 
the street, trying to bring them in single-handedly to avenge Frank, 
only to get his leg and eye handed to him.  I get a future scene in 
which Neville breaks down and tells the whole story.  I also get 
*Big* Box Office.

Compare that with Memory Charm Neville, who is 3 and still can't 
finger the Lestranges without some magical assistance.  How do the 
Lestranges get caught if not by Reverse Memory Charm Neville?  
Hmmm?  Hmmm?  Is our Big scene when Gran comes in, sees Neville's 
tear-stained face, and gives him a magical memory-ectomy?  

Elkins again:

>You want huddling-in-the-closet-whimpering-pitifully-with-
> his-eyes-squeezed-tightly-shut-while-rocking-back-and-forth-
> autistically Neville.  <snip>  And besides all of that, it 
> also gives you the opportunity to remove that Memory Charm later 
on 
> and get the even Bigger and even Bangier Flashback Neville.

To tell you the truth, I want nothing to do with Memory Charm 
Neville.  If this is oh-so-painful that Neville needed a Memory 
Charm, then why are we removing it?  And if Neville has a Memory 
Charm, I have to throw popcorn at the screen for each of his visits 
to his parents.  "Gran, why are you taking me to see these *perfect 
strangers* again?  I mean, I don't even know them, they don't know 
me, they just lie there in their beds, what is *the point* exactly, 
Gran?  Torture?  What on earth are you talking about, Woman?" 
Neville asks again and again.  Ugh.

No, the Bang will have to come in the scene where Reverse Memory 
Charm Neville *comes to grips* with what he has been forced to live 
with for 14 nightmare-ridden years.  He can even have a flashback 
when he does this, if you want.  I will look to Neville's ability to 
finally work the ToadKeeper spell to restore his parents for my 
final Oscar-winning Big scene, then I will roll the credits.

Elkins again:
 
> Or, if you *really* wanted Big and Bangy, you could even grit your 
> teeth and adopt Tex's suggestion of Tortured Neville.  

I think Tex (was it Tex or Eric Oppen?) will have to row that boat 
upstream himself.  It has Edge (I think), but I don't see why the 
Lestranges would torture Neville.  Canon says that the Lestranges 
tortured Frank to get Frank to talk.  I don't see how Frank goes 
insane if someone tortures Neville.  I mean, why bother?  I need 
someone to set the scene for me there.

Elkins again:

> And besides, who ever heard of a "Reverse Memory Charm," anyway?  
> There's no such thing in canon.  What we do have are Memory 
Charms. <snip>  you want to make it a Reverse 
> Memory Charm just 'cause you're a little bit *squeamish?*  

OK, now, that really hurt.  Aside from the fact that you've come 
right out and said I'm squeamish and therefore not Tough, you're 
saying the Reverse Memory Charm doesn't exist in canon.  Ouch!  And 
you said you were agnostic on the subject of Memory Charms and were 
willing to work with me if I'd go along on Avery.  I feel soiled 
somehow.  

Reverse Memory Charms are not *directly* mentioned in canon, true.  
You know, kind of the way Avery's backstory isn't directly mentioned 
in canon.  <g> But the Reverse Memory Charm *clues* are there.  

There's also the fact that Memory Charm Neville is so darn 
*obvious*.  I'd say 98% of the people who read the first four books 
work out Memory Charm Neville completely on their own.  Is JKR so 
comfortable with her fancy new husband and her fancy new mansion and 
her fancy new wallet that she's not even going to *try* to shock us 
with Neville's backstory?  I just can't accept that.  I can't and I 
won't! ::holds breath, turns red in the face::

Besides, how is JKR going to answer important backstory questions 
with Memory Charm Neville?  How on earth were the Lestranges and 
Crouch Jr. caught (quickly, IMHO) without Neville's evidence?  If 
Neville has a Memory Charm and so has no memory of the torture of 
his parents, why has he been so tight-lipped about it?  Does he just 
go visit his parents, hear the whole story from Gran again, and then 
just forget it the minute he gets back to Hogwarts?

I originally wrote:

> > So I issue a challenge. Something Big must be going on with 
> > Neville. Surely he isn't going to spend seven books as a timid, 
> > forgetful boy chasing after a useless toad. What is Neville's 
> > backstory, then? Any takers?

I'd like to think my Neville Reverse Memory Charm Rope-A-Dope has 
fended off Elkins' rather vigorous assault. But I must point out 
that I *still* haven't heard an alternative backstory explanation of 
what is going on with Neville and Trevor.  

The challenge still stands.  ::looks around the room hopefully::

Cindy 




From drjennyfer at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 25 18:43:35 2002
From: drjennyfer at hotmail.com (drjennyfer)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:43:35 -0000
Subject: A Levels vs N.E.W.Ts
In-Reply-To: <a5d2ps+gvid@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5e0kn+qsjf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35721

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" <Ali at z...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "psion_x" <psion_x at y...> wrote:
> > Yet another question which I'm not sure is on topic or not.
> > N.E.W.Ts are assumed to be the equivilent of A Levels in England 

> 
> 
> I don't think that there is any canon evidence to show us what the 
> NEWTS consist of - so it's easiest to assume that they are like 
> A'Levels. 
> Ali

Since JKR is Scottish, is it possible that the NEWTs are equivalent
to 
the Scottish Highers? These are taken in 5th year, a year after 
standard grades (GCSE/OWL equivalent). Normally, up to 5 highers are 
taken, but it is quite possible to do more.
jenxx





From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com  Mon Feb 25 18:52:26 2002
From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:52:26 -0000
Subject: Marauders learning to be animagi....Definitely!
References: <3C78E7AB.7878.13405A13@localhost>
Message-ID: <005001c1be2d$aa4467a0$ce11bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 35722


> Dreadful Rita Skeeter becomes a creepy crawly beetle (GoF),  Pettigrew a
> lowly rat and James Potter a noble stag (PoA).   So I  would think that
> while the actual process of becoming an animal is
>  proably a magical skill that could be learned, the magic takes the
> personality traits of an animagus into account and governs to a large extent
> what the person turns into.  

er ... do we want to explore why McGonagall turns into a cat then?  Cats being 
the insatiably curious, hedonsitic little beasts that they are?  Maybe there's 
more to her than meets the eye?

Definitely!  Minerva McGonagall was, after all, rumoured to be Seeker for Gryffindor in her halcyon days at Hogwarts. (No canonical evidence for this but JKR would not have allowed in into the film unless it was true...)Someone who makes it as a Seeker is going to have cat-like cunning, guile, perhaps be slightly vain and also brave and fearless. She was probably a Prefect and Head Girl too.  

While we do not hear much about Professor McGonagall's background, it is usually she and Professor Snape who appear to aid Dumbledore in emergencies and times of need, and, after all, dealing with wizard students day-in day-out you would need to be insatiably curious, cunning, and with the killer instinct just to survive.

Felicia Rickmann

(who only has five cats but has first-hand experience of their killer instinct i.e. another * stiff * lies in the passageway at home.............)


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





From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 25 19:05:12 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:05:12 -0000
Subject: AK stealing souls
In-Reply-To: <01ed01c1bdb3$03cac2e0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a5e1t8+itcl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35723

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" <huntleyl at m...> wrote:
> However, the personality of his [Frank Bryce's] shadow-self and the 
shadow-selves of Cedric and Co. kind of got me thinking.  Don't the 
shadow-selves seem a little too..well, sentient, to be merely 
representations of spells the wand has cast?  It makes me wonder if 
the Avada Kedavra curse actually does more than just kill you.  
Perhaps it steals vital parts of the victim's being?  Parts say, like 
the soul?  Or not, because canon states that people can survive 
without their souls.  However,  maybe it sort of...absorbs a person's 
*being*.  In a sense, maybe it sucks not only their life/magic/soul 
essence out, but, in effect, transfers that essence/power to the 
wand/wizard.   I'm sure this theory has been discussed before, but 
well..it's new to me. ^_~ Anyway, a list of reasons why this theory 
would fit into the plot or answer some questions canon has yet to 
address...
> 
> 1) Perhaps this is why the Avada Kedavra curse is Unforgivable.  We 
know that there are other ways to kill using magic.  (I.e. Peter's 
blow-up-the-street-specialty-of-the-house.)  Yet these ways are not 
Unforgivable.  Maybe Avada Kedavra steals a person's essence as well 
as killing them, robbing them of existence even in the afterlife.  
Also, it makes those who use it more powerful, giving it a triple-
whammy against it.  It kills, it steals the victims' sacred 
soul/spirit/whatever, and (as a special extra bonus) it makes the 
murderer more powerful.  Why *not* make it Unforgivable?  GOOD 
wizards obviously do not *do* these things. ^_^
> 
> 2) This theory would give dark wizards an incentive to use Avada 
Kedavra as opposed to otherwise better alternatives.  Why not just 
use the curse Peter did to blow up the street (or a less damaging 
alternative, there are lots of ways to kill people, trust me)?  It 
kills more people with (I assume) less power.  More bang for the 
buck, as my father used to say.  UNLESS there are hidden benefits to 
using AK that canon has not yet enlightened us to.
> 
> 3) This may be why Harry seems to "absorbed" parts of Voldie as a 
result of the failed AK (parseltounge, etc.  Dumbledore said 
something to this effect in CoS).  If the AK *backfired* totally, 
Harry would have ended up getting V's essence instead of the other 
way around.  Of course, V certainly did retain part of his 
personality after the failed curse.  Perhaps his experimental 
immortality spells had the effect of changing parts of his essence 
into a form AK couldn't steal?

This theory makes definite sense to me.  I've always felt that AK 
steals more than just the victim's life, and that it gives whatever 
it takes (soul, essence, power) to the dark wizard/witch performing 
the curse.  I think this could be a possible explanation of why 
Voldemort's inner circle are called "Death Eaters"; they  actually 
feed on or absorb the power they steal from other wizards/witches.  
(For any of you who watched the tv series "Highlander" this will 
sound very familiar.)  Perhaps the 5 of Voldemort's victims who were 
released from him thanks to Priori Incantatem will be able to rest 
peacefully now.




From sandirs at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 25 19:08:45 2002
From: sandirs at hotmail.com (Sandi Steinberg)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:08:45 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] why would hagrid....
Message-ID: <F2943ltNy87hSM0Mox500011e09@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35724

lazyscientist wrote,

>Hagrid seems to stick up for Snape even though generally he doesn't do so 
>for most teachers. Why is this? Maybe he knows about his deatheater past? 
>Is it possible dumbledore told him? Just curious....

Perhaps, having been given a second chance by Dumbledore after being falsely 
accused and expelled from Hogwarts has made Hagrid more willing to give 
others a second chance, including people he doesn't like or admire, esp. if 
Dumbledore feels that they are worthy of such.

Sandi




From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 25 19:33:33 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:33:33 -0000
Subject: Flitwick the Great
In-Reply-To: <a5cb5a+s0s0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5e3id+8uqp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35725

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" <skelkins at a...> wrote:
> Bearing in mind, of course, that the less we know about people
> the easier it becomes to envy their lot in life, I would still 
> like to cast my vote for Most Enviable Character for little
> Professor Flitwick.
> 
> He has a comfortable job, and he is good at it.  He is confident
> enough in his role as an instructor to allow the students to slack 
> off and have a bit of fun at Christmas time, but he is no push-over 
> either: in GoF, he gives Harry and Neville extra assignments when 
> they both seem to be faltering in his Charms class.  He is friendly 
> and accessible and gives no impression of House bias in his dealings
> with the students.  If he were one of my teachers and I were having
> difficulty with his subject, I would feel perfectly comfortable 
> going to him out of class for extra help; I suspect that most of
> Hogwarts' students feel the same way.  Flitwick's teaching style
> may not be as flashily challenging as Snape's, nor as blatantly 
> "tough but fair" as McGonagall's, but it is rock-solid.  His
> students learn their stuff, and they seem to learn it well.  He's 
> a very good teacher.
> 
> Flitwick is also well-respected among his peers.  We know that he 
> has talent in his field: in his youth he was a duelling champion;
> McGonagall enlists his aid in checking Harry's Firebolt for signs
> of tampering; and when discussing the Fidelius Charm in Hogsmeade,
> the other adults instantly defer to him to give the explanation
> of precisely what the Charm is and how it works.  
> 
> He would also seem to be quite well-liked and to have the ability
> to get along well with a wide variety of types of people.  He 
> goes out for drinks with McGonagall, Hagrid and the Minister of 
> Magic himself in PoA, and there is no indication that he is not
> perfectly comfortable with all three of them.  Everybody seems to
> like him.  Even Snape never has a single snipe for Flitwick.  
> 
> And he seems very content.  If he cares at all that House 
> Ravenclaw never nabs the Quiddich or House Cup, then he does
> an excellent job of hiding his resentment.  He would seem not
> to be particularly competitive at all, really -- although given
> that he was once a duelling champion, we can assume that this
> isn't because he's at all *incapable* of showing a good fighting
> spirit when he feels like it.  He's just plain too *well-adjusted* 
> to give way to envy or resentment or jealousy over such trivial
> matters.  And good for him!  He's sane.  Sane, cheerful, kind...
> the guy has simply got it together.
> 
> Of course, there may well be some dreadful tragedy in the poor
> guy's past.  But if there is, then he would seem to be handling 
> it remarkably well.  And that's an enviable quality too, come to 
> think of it.
> 
> So Flitwick gets my vote for the character I envy the most.  After
> all, who wouldn't want to be well-liked, well-respected, eminently 
> well-adjusted, and comfortably ensconced in a secure job at
> which you excel?


Prof. Flitwick definitely gets my vote for "Teacher of the Year!"  
All those in favor, say "Aye!"  




From Caeser56 at si.rr.com  Mon Feb 25 19:13:11 2002
From: Caeser56 at si.rr.com (caes56)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:13:11 -0000
Subject: Genetically Enchanced Harry?/Pre-Hogwarts Harry
Message-ID: <a5e2c7+dleh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35726

     Hello all, again! 

-----Catlady wrote:-----------------
Imagine how Harry would feel if he found that his parents hadn't 
particularly loved each other, but had each broken up with the 
person they really loved because they were the two with the best 
magic or genes to bear the designer baby? And they hadn't 
particularly wanted a baby to cuddle or a child to play Catch with, 
but only to do their part to create a weapon against the Dark Lord? 
And no one had ever cared whether he'd be happy in life, but they 
only wanted to use him against Voldemort. I can see reason for him 
to throw a huge tantrum, shouting: "None of you have ever done 
anything for me that would give you a right to demand that I throw 
my life away to save you!"
------------------------------------
         
----------Uncmark Wrote:------------

I'm thinking Harry probably fulfills some great prophecy about 'a 
great wizard raised by muggles wo defeated Avada Kedavra while still 
a babe. I don't believe that a prophecy would negate free will. 
Harry's rower comes from his parent's love and sacrifice, which 
magic should not be able to affect. No spell should cause true love 
and I'm sure the ancient magic that made Hqarry immune to Vmort was 
from his mother's sacrifice FREELY GIVEN!

I am wondering about the relevence to the color GREEN to Harry. His 
eyes are described as 'brilliant GREEN'; he remembers the GREEN 
flash of LV's magic attack(was this Avada Kedavra?) and rumors have 
it that a future book will be something like "Harry Potter and the 
Green Flame" haveing to do with the nature of magic.
----------------------------------

      Catlady, you're thinking right along my lines! It's a pretty 
funky idea that possibly, maybe, Harry's fate was meant to be! 
      To Uncmark: even with the idea that Harry was "made to combat 
Dark Wizards", it could still very much be about free will! Think 
about it for a second- if you had lived a good portion of your life- 
about 18 years or so, with terror all around you because a wizard 
was destroying everything and murdering people, you'd be scared too! 
So, if you were given an option, say, of raising a child who would 
become the wizard who defeats this Dark Wizard, but the baby would 
need to be enhanced at birth to fight him, wouldn't that be a choice 
that we hope most people would make? Maybe, along those lines, James 
and Lily Potter were together because they made a good enough 
couple, but genes, or magic, or whatever factor you wish to choose, 
so that their offspring could fight the dark wizard. Now, they're 
both fighting the Dark Wizard, and the baby comes along. After all 
the trouble that the Dark Wizard, Voldemort, puts the world through, 
he decides to try to come and kill this baby who is made to defeat 
him! Knowing that nothing else can stop Voldemort, and the only 
person he's afraid of- Dumbledore- is not much more than a stopgap, 
wouldn't you too willingly sacrifice yourself for the child, both 
out of maternal love and out of sacrifice for the greater good?  
       I say Dumbledore is only a stopgap because as it is stated in 
the canon, I don't believe he himself could have defeated Lord 
Voldemort. I believe it was in GOF that it was stated that it seemed 
like a matter of time before he became powerful enough to attack 
Hogwarts.(I believe though am not positive the line went something 
like, "He was getting stronger. He hadn't attacked Hogwarts. Not 
yet, anyway." though I am probably off a bit). This seems to imply 
that Dumbledore himself wasn't the threat- but rather, it was what 
he knew or who he knew, or yet, who he could influence. Most 
probably, it was a combination of the three. Imagine it like George 
Washington's history here in the states- in history classes here, we 
were taught that GW was a great general. Not true! At least, to 
anyone who knows about the arts and practices of war! During his 
leadership, I believe his battle record was something like an 
appaling 1 win, 7 losses or similar. He was known as a bad general, 
but the reason he withstood the test of time was because he could 
LEAD. He was an outspoken leader with a lot of charisma that could 
get people to follow him, and it was those other people who won the 
war. Maybe Dumbledore is similar in this fashion! OK, we know by 
canon he's not an incompetant fighter, but what if he wasn't 
powerful enough to take on LV, but instead, he was the only person 
that was a competant enough leader and a knowledgeable enough 
scholar to find a way to defeat him? It would still follow that LV 
was afraid of Dumbledore, but for different reasons that most of us 
assume! After all, it makes even more sense this way, because if 
Dumbledore is as powerful as everyone thinks, why wouldn't he have 
taken care of LV a long time before any of this got out of hand(by 
that I mean when Riddle returned after all the years of experiments 
as LV)?
     What's even more fasicnating about this theory is as Catlady 
wrote: it's still about free will, choice, and a lack of any 
predetermined destiny! Uncmark, we can still have this theory hold, 
and STILL be about free choice! After all, isn't Dumbledore letting 
Harry choose?  He has never stated in the canon that Harry has to 
fight the Dark Wizards- he lets Harry choose his own actions, and 
just helps him to win, giving him the extra and nessecary pushes in 
the right places! Harry, however, would still be able to choose 
whether or not he wants to fight the Dark Wizards- because he would 
just have the ability, the push and desire would still have to be 
his own!
     Onto another subject, the Pre-Hogwarts Harry Potter!

-----------Conquistas2000 Wrote:---------------------
How come nobody spilled the beans to Harry that he's a wizard (before
Hogwarts)?
In SS/PS, the wizard folks recognize Harry (Tip their hat, etc..), 
and happens often enough that Harry notices it.  In the 10 years, why
didn't any of the wizards/witches strike up a conversaion with Harry
or tell of his origins?
If Mrs. Figgs is really a witch, why didn't she also tell Harry that
he's a wizard?  Maybe she is, but Harry is just too thick headed to
notice.  If she is showing Harry all the cats she owned, in hopes 
that Harry will notice all the cats outside his window belongs to 
Figgs.
------------------------------------------------------

         It is never clearly stated in the canon why he isn't 
notified by other wizards of his true nature, but rather, it must be 
inferred from other writings. Let me explain myself out, because 
this is a bit long and hard to explain properly, I think. 
      We all know why the Dursleys never explained Harry's origins 
to him(and if you don't, you haven't read the books). We also know 
that almost all of the wizarding world knows about Harry, and that 
he is hidden among the muggles. This can be said with certainty 
because we all know Harry is famous, and in the Sorceror's Stone, we 
see that Ron knows he was sent off to live with muggles.(The scene 
this is in is when Ron and Harry are on the train to Hogwarts, and 
Rain says "I heard they sent you off to live with muggles! What's it 
like?") So we know the world knows he is out there, but doesn't know 
about his wizarding ancestry. Now, we also know that muggles don't 
believe in Magic and that they actively avoid it. For proof of this, 
read GOF and in particular the scenes with Arthur Weasely("Bless 
[the Muggles], they'll go to any lengths to avoid magic!" or 
something like that!). We also know that Harry was brought up by 
muggles and influenced by their culture, and as such doesn't believe 
in magic. It takes Hagrid pouncing on a door and doing magic in 
front of Harry to really get him to believe, and even then he's 
still a skeptic. The wizards also work very hard at covering 
themselves up and not being noticed by the muggles. So, knowing 
these things, we can infer a few scenarios that could exist if they 
were to interfere with his upbringing:
     1- A wizard tells Harry that he is a wizard. Harry, having this 
explained to him, believes the wizard is a crazy loon, and this 
harms him in the future as he is less likely to believe it when 
Hagrid tells him the truth.
     2- Harry is told about the past, and believes it, and gains an 
ego. If you remember in the opening chapter of SS, Dumbledore 
explains to Prof. McGonagall that one of the reasons he is with the 
Dursleys is to prevent just that! It's a situation like Christ- as 
much as I hate to bring in religon- in that if you grew up knowing 
you're the savior of the world, you'd have one helluvan ego!
     3- Mrs Figg tells Harry. Harry already thinks she's a nutcase, 
so the most likely outcome is an even more harmful version of case 1.
     These are just a few possible harmful scenarios of what could 
happen if Harry realizes what he was too early, and this is a lot of 
the reason why Dumbledore sends him to live his life like he has. 
Knowing that, there was probably some sort of announcement or 
warning telling the wizarding world not to mess with him. Or, more 
likely, not to inform him of the past, as you have to remember he is 
for all essential purposes a muggle and would react as muggles 
would, thereby destroying the masquerade that the wizards have set 
up all these years. But when Deadelus Diggle bows to Harry Potter in 
a shop, he gives nothing away. He lets Harry know he respects him
(even if, until he met him in the bar, Harry thought Diggle was a 
bit of a loon, he eventually found out why) but doesn't damage 
Harry's perceptions in any way. This is all, of course, just a 
theory, so as always, I could very well be wrong and I hope there is 
a lot of continuing replies to these threads! I'm always interested 
in hearing other peoples opinions! Thanks all for bearing with my 
long posts! Have a good day!

-Vin

   "John, That's a body in the air!" "Vin, it's a bird! It's not a 
body!" "John, they don't have birds in this game!"
                 -during a game of Road Rash for the 3DO, upon 
seeing a weird shape waaaaaayyy ahead of us in the sky in the race. 
Later proven to be a body in a VERY bad head-on collision. Sorry to 
all those who don't play Video Games, but to those who do this 
should be worth a bit of a laugh.





From Ali at zymurgy.org  Mon Feb 25 19:40:17 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:40:17 -0000
Subject: A Levels vs N.E.W.Ts
In-Reply-To: <a5e0kn+qsjf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5e3v1+94me@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35727

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

> 
> Since JKR is Scottish, is it possible that the NEWTs are equivalent
> to 
> the Scottish Highers? These are taken in 5th year, a year after 
> standard grades (GCSE/OWL equivalent). Normally, up to 5 highers 
are 
> taken, but it is quite possible to do more.
> jenxx

JKR is actually English - although she lives - and worked in 
Scotland. The reason I don't think that NEWTs are equivalent to 
Highers is that then Harry etc would leave school at the end of 6 
years not 7, which they don't. Percy definitely took his NEWTs in his 
7th Year. Perhaps JKR will come up with something totally different!

Ali




From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Mon Feb 25 19:58:35 2002
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:58:35 -0800
Subject: Rowling as Conan Doyle {WAS: Re: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore - father figure or manipulator?}
In-Reply-To: <20020224204748.42177.qmail@web9507.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20020224204748.42177.qmail@web9507.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1467493614.20020225115835@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35728


Sunday, February 24, 2002, 12:47:48 PM, Andrew MacIan wrote:

AM> I do suspect that Rowling has observed the effect that
AM> Holmes had on Conan Doyle; after all, other than
AM> Challenger and the 'White Company', how much of CD's
AM> other writing springs to mind when his name is
AM> mentioned?

The same is true of L. Frank Baum -- He desperately wanted to break
free of Oz and write other fantasy stories.  He didn't kill anyone
off, but he tried to have Oz get cut off from the outside world so
that no new Oz adventures could reach the "Royal Historian".  But it
was no good -- The "little tyrants" (as he called them) insisted on
more Oz stories, so he had to re-establish contact with Oz via wireless
telegraph. ( There was no radio, TV, or Internet yet. :) )

-- 
Dave




From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Mon Feb 25 20:16:37 2002
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:16:37 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time: Harry Potter a different Universe with a Different Calander?
In-Reply-To: <a5c9pk+89sk@eGroups.com>
References: <a5c9pk+89sk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8368576569.20020225121637@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35729


Sunday, February 24, 2002, 7:07:32 PM, psion_x wrote:

p> How would you explain the problem of time in the Harry Potter 
p> series, just ignore it? Or does it bother you no end, until you have 
p> to start making up theories about mysterious extra days, or assume 
p> it was all just a typo.

I've written about this at length in the past, but yes it does bother
me... What Mariahisabel says about JKR "writing for herself" is all
very well from a "Harry Potter as Literature" standpoint, but from a
"Harry Potter as History" one, there are many problematic things...
If your search this list's archives you can probably find my own
solutions to some of the problems. (Basically a combination of the
"four or five years" difference, faulty memories, and typos on
official MoM documents.)

p> Do you think we can assume that for some reason the Wizarding world
p> influenced the introduction of the Julian calander four years early, 
p> which would make the HP series half work.

My personal theory (stated briefly) is that the Wizarding World
somehow avoided all the old anomalies that were solved (and all the
new ones that were created) by the Muggles' transitions to the
Julian and then to the Gregorian Calander.  No doubt someday some
brilliant Potterologist will come up with a "Wizard Calander" that
irons out all the discrepancies.

-- 
Dave




From lmccabe at sonic.net  Mon Feb 25 20:00:17 2002
From: lmccabe at sonic.net (linda_mccabe)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:00:17 -0000
Subject: Rumour about Book 5 release date
In-Reply-To: <20020216143537.12136.qmail@web11104.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a5e54h+t9vo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35730

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Maria <maryblue67 at y...> wrote:
> Hello everyone!!
> 
> Last night my boyfriend told me something very casually about the
> release of Book 5 (he is not a fan, so he doesn't understand the
> significance of what he told me)
> 
> Anyway, he works for UPS in Saint Louis, in the department of 
finance
> for big company/corporative deliveries (not the personal shipments,
> but company ones). He told me that UPS is in charge of the
> distribution of the HP books, and that he heard yesterday that the
> book is coming out in may. It coincides with what we had heard 
about
> an end-of-school-year release, so it seems quite believable...
> 
> Hope it is true!!!
> 
> Maria
> 

Hello everyone,
This is my first post and I'll wade in cautiously in the waters by 
addressing a topic that I have a little expertise.  I worked in a 
bookstore several years ago and learned a little about the 
publishing industry.  I simply don't believe the rumor that the book 
is coming out in May.  Even if UPS in Saint Louis plans on shipping 
HP books, it would depend on the distributors.  The largest book 
distributor in the US is Ingram. (There are others such as Baker & 
Taylor, Bookpeople, Pacific Pipeline, Publisher's Group West, etc.)  
Ingram has several warehouses in the US and the headquarters and 
largest warehouse is in La Vergne, Tennessee.  I don't recall any 
warehouse in the St. Louis area at all.  There are also many 
shippers of books used by book distributors.  We received shipments 
from not only UPS, but WPX (Western Parcel) and others I simply 
can't remember.

Also, I'm subscribed to a daily email update from Publisher's 
Weekly.  There has not been anything recently posted regarding any 
publication dates real or rumored regarding OofP.  Publisher's 
Weekly updates for booksellers is newsy and at times gossipy.  When 
I see anything about HP, I'll pass it on.  Until then - rejoice in 
knowing that the DVD will be out in May and the paperback of GoF is 
due out on July 31st to celebrate Harry's Birthday.

I'll post my thoughts regarding canon when I've done enough 
background reading of your posts and theories.

Cheers,
Athena (my alter ego)


 





From cindysphynx at home.com  Mon Feb 25 21:21:11 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:21:11 -0000
Subject: Amos Diggory (WAS Enviable and pitiable characters)
In-Reply-To: <a5chj8+kv9u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5e9s7+t92h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35731

Catlady wrote:

> Yes, Amos is just *destroyed* to lose his son who meant everything 
> to him.  The only way I can think of for him to be seduced by the 
> Dark Side (the murderers of his son! on whom surely he seeks more 
> vengeance!) now is if some Death Eater recruiter persuaded him 
that 
> Voldemort's Dark Magic and Immortality Spells could bring Cedric 
back 
> to life.

Oh, that Amos Diggory is one to watch in OoP, isn't he?  The Daily 
Prophet is saying that Harry will do anything to win.  That Harry is 
dangerous and disturbed.  That Harry cheated to enter the Tournament 
in the first place.  

Then Harry and Cedric enter the Third Task tied.  And who just 
happens to show up at the finish line holding the Cup in one hand 
and Cedric's cold dead arm in the other?  That just plain doesn't 
look good.

I think Amos will manifest his grief by stirring up trouble for 
Harry at MoM.  This won't be hard, after all, because *everyone* at 
MoM is an evil DE.  Fudge.  Bagman.  McNair. Avery.  Oh sure, Harry 
has Percy and Arthur Weasley to watch his back for him at MoM.  
Small comfort, that.

No, Amos won't *mean* to help the DEs.  He is grief-stricken; he 
doesn't care about who wins in the Good vs. Evil fight.  His aid to 
the DEs will be ancillary to his own efforts to avenge Cedric.  But 
the result will be the same -- Amos is going to have it in for Harry.
And we've all seen how snippy he can get if he even *suspects* that 
a house elf has been waving a wand around.  

Amos Diggory definitely has my pity, but I'm not going to let him 
out of my sight.

Cindy




From heidit at netbox.com  Mon Feb 25 21:26:06 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (heidi tandy)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:26:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Marauders learning to be animagi, SnapeFAQ, Ghosts, Baby Harry, 
In-Reply-To: <a5dnpo+6krt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020225212606.64392.qmail@web9502.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35732


--- gwendolyngrace <lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu>
wrote:
> 
> So why do you feel that his lycanthropy makes his
> ability to change
> forms different, now as opposed to then?
> 
> Is it because the wolf is so much a part of his
> nature, or is it
> because lycanthropy and self-transfiguration can't
> work together, or
> is it some other theory?
I've got a theory!
I don't think he can become an animagus (or if he
could, he'd be a wolf) because if he did, then
wouldn't it seem that being in another form would
prevent the transformation from happening, and thus he
would've been able to use becoming an animagus as a
cure for the monthly lycanthropy?

In other words, if he could be a bunny or even a
bobcat, would the moon have the same affect on him?
Perhaps *that* is the true mystery behind the
Shrieking Shack scene - that they'd transfigured Remus
into a fluffy bunny and were *convinced* that it was
going to work - and Sirius sent Snape down there to
*prove* to him that Remus wasn't dangerous or scary -
he was a harmless, fluffy bunny! But oops! It didn't
work! So Snape met up with a werewolf, when all Sirius
wanted him to find was a bunny rabbit!

Yoris wrote:
> This is the best snape review i ever read!!!
Everything about it is perfect,
> please let her write the snape FAQ!!! 

Erm. Maybe one of the mods should answer this, instead
of me (a longtime elf and FAQ writer (if I could ever
sit down and plough thru the 35000 messages to find
those few mentions of Malfoys)) but I'll take the
bait.
Gwendolyn Grace, who has a long history of excellent
Snape posts and Snapexpertise, is in the middle of
spending about 100+ hours writing the Snape FAQ. She's
ploughed through about 28,000 messages so far, and is
doing a thorough job on covering all the oft-discussed
topics revolving around the Potions Master.  She's
also an Elf here, and like all the elves and mods and
geists, spends a tonne of time making the back-end of
the HP4GU community sing - just like all of you are
going to when you read the wonderful FAQ she's putting
together, which will be out some time before Book V.
We think :) (:schnoogles gwen)

jklb66 wrote:
> I've always felt that AK 
> steals more than just the victim's life, and that it
gives whatever 
> it takes (soul, essence, power) to the dark
wizard/witch performing 
> the curse.  I think this could be a possible
explanation of why 
> Voldemort's inner circle are called "Death Eaters";
they  actually 
> feed on or absorb the power they steal from other
wizards/witches.  
> (For any of you who watched the tv series
"Highlander" this will 
> sound very familiar.)  Perhaps the 5 of Voldemort's
victims who were 
> released from him thanks to Priori Incantatem will
be able to rest 
> peacefully now.

Or perhaps they'll now be ghosts, free roaming, and
able to be of use to Harry - especially his parents -
in later books. JKR did say that eventually we'd learn
why some people became ghosts, and this would also be
a way for (a) more of the Marauder history to come
into play, and (b) Harry to learn more about his
family. I actually don't think she'll do this, because
it seems to *easy* for Harry to have Ghost!mom and
Ghost!dad lurking in perpetuity (although that would
put an end to SHIP debates for Harry - what better
romance killer could there be than having parents
prepared to pop through walls at any moment?). But
maybe they'll be waiting at Privet Drive and be able
to spend some time with him before they next *next*
great adventure.

Conquistas2000 wrote:
> How come nobody spilled the beans to Harry that he's
a wizard (before
> Hogwarts)?
> In SS/PS, the wizard folks recognize Harry (Tip
their hat, etc..), 
> and happens often enough that Harry notices it.  In
the 10 years, why
> didn't any of the wizards/witches strike up a
conversaion with Harry
> or tell of his origins?

I agree with those who say timing and circumstance.
Mrs Figg had reasons of secrecy, and nobody else was
able to get close enough for long enough to explain
anything. But he does accept things easily enough when
Hagrid tells him about them - and perhaps that's
because he has long-unthought-of childhood memories of
magic. An 11 year old isn't going to consciously
remember being 15 months old, but a 3 year old will -
and it's possible that Harry got through his early
years with the Dursleys by remembering things from
when he was younger. I've always been intrigued by the
image of Harry in his little cupboard, doing a lumos
spell by thought alone, or making his toys move, or
making a book read it to him. It's one of the reasons
I hope he's an extra-powerful wizard - I want him
to've been able to do these things as a wee one, to
make it less difficult to live the life he led. Poor
woobiekins.

heidi
follow me to FictionAlley -
http://www.fictionalley.org
HP fanfics of all shapes, sizes & SHIPs

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com



From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Mon Feb 25 21:35:47 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:35:47 -0000
Subject: The Big Bangers and Neville
In-Reply-To: <a5dtuf+n5me@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5eanj+l6m2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35733

Cindy, you've finally sold me on it. Push over a MATCHINGARMCHAIR, and 
 I'll install it in my cabin on the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS, and put my 
GIANTCUSHION on it, while comfortably contemplating the prospect of 
promised exchange arrangements between CUPID'S QUAFFLE and LOLLIPOPS, 
dreaming about ambushes, and wondering why I've fallen for that fickle 
Hanoverian George. 

"But Charlie is my darling", says Eileen sleepily, who, as a child, 
used to rage against Culloden.

Cindy to Elkins:
> I thought we decided we could still be friends.  Besides, I see that 
> you have rebounded to George, and deep down I'm very happy for you. 

But we can still be Georgians and believe in bloody ambushes, can't 
we? Otherwise, you and Elkins are pulling me apart. It's already 
enough trouble trying to cope with your insinuation that us Georgians 
are a scantily clad lot. 
 
> Oh, you want to play "My Neville Backstory Is Bigger Than Yours," 
> huh?  OK, I'm in. 
<Cindy continues with a bang-up backstory for Neville Longbottom>
> 

Ah, I'd always suspected I had Big Bang tendencies, and your story 
just gives more bang for your buck than anything I've heard yet. That 
said, why am I a Georgian? Oh, for a very Georgian reason. Like Snape, 
my principles, awakened by Elkins's relentless witnessing, have 
trumped over my fondness for Big Bang theories, however viscerally 
invigorating.

But this one I'll stick to. 


> No, no, no.  Reverse Memory Charm Neville suffers, you see.  I'm 
> giving Neville a *tremendous* amount of pain.  I'm enhancing his 
> memory so that he hears the shrieks of his parents *every darn 
> day*.  Not only has the Reverse Memory Charm wrecked his memory for 
> things like where he left his toad, it has caused him to repeatedly 
> experience his parents' torture in Dolby and Technocolor.  Reverse 
> Memory Charm Neville has to be Tough to avoid losing his mind 
> completely, if you ask me.  

WOOHOO! Wouldn't that floor Harry, when he finds out? 

> 
> I like to be inclusive, though.  If you like, Neville can be a 
> SYCOPHANT in the making.  Add the pressure of ToadKeeper where 
> Neville has to be strong enough to restore his parents, and you have 
> cinematic nitroglycerin.

Cindy, how could you even suggest this? BTW, I want nothing of your 
ToadKeeper. I hear they give you warts, so keep that craft far away 
from me, though I will do occasional stints on the Big Bang vessel. 

> I think Tex (was it Tex or Eric Oppen?) will have to row that boat 
> upstream himself.  It has Edge (I think), but I don't see why the 
> Lestranges would torture Neville.  Canon says that the Lestranges 
> tortured Frank to get Frank to talk.  I don't see how Frank goes 
> insane if someone tortures Neville.  I mean, why bother?  I need 
> someone to set the scene for me there.

Possible Edge. And you know how we all worship Edge. Your suggestion 
that Fudge has Edge has been mesmerizing me (and making me laugh up my 
guts) for the last half hour. But how is this Edgey? I thought Edge 
was a characteristic of personality. Yet, perhaps you are right. It 
certainly is twisted. OK, you've sold me on it, even though you don't 
believe in it yourself. 

OK. Time to set the scene.

Why would the Lestranges leave Neville out of the picture, Cindy? They 
tortured Mrs. Longbottom to make Frank talk, why would they leave his 
little toddler out of the business? Because Florence Lestrange was a 
kind maternal woman in whom Neville awakened the thought of a lost 
life as Mrs. Sirius Black barefootedly baking cookies for the hordes 
of little Blacks? No, I don't think so. 

"You won't talk? Well, do you want to see your child tortured?"

And Frank Longbottom, being unbelievably tough and principled, like 
the upright Slytherin he is (:-), regards Flo. with a look of 
loathing, and tells her to go to Hell. (Which she does really, Azkaban 
not being that nice a place.) 

Fortunately for Neville, Avery who was on lookout (because he couldn't 
stomach the violence) comes bounding in, and tells them that the house 
is surrounded by Ministry wizards, who have with them a terrified 
Lucius Malfoy, who has told them the whole plan, since he is afraid of 
a) Being seen as an accomplice to it, if he doesn't pass on Avery's 
blabbings or b) The Scheme actually working.  

MUHAHAHAHA! cries the evil Florence Lestrange, while Bartie Crouch 
begins to bawl with fear, and Frank Longbottom laughs at them. 

"You'll never get away, m'dear. My pal Moody will track you to the 
ends of the earth. "

"He'll never know who it was, MISTER Longbottom. We'll apparate out of 
here, and you, your wife, and your child will be incurably insane."

You see, if reverse-memory-charms exist, why would Flo leave Neville 
in a position to testify? Of course, she'd want to leave the little 
tyke in exactly the same position as his parents. 

She picks up poor cowering Neville and raises her wand, but 
cool-headed Frank makes a final and heroic move, summoning up his last 
bit of magical power to push the child out of her hands, and through 
the window. Flo's rage is, of course, horrible, and what she does to 
the Longbottoms is... ummm... very bad. 

You see here, that I'm presuming that Mrs. Longbottom has already been 
mostly incapacitated by this point in the narrative. And, that makes 
sense, because it's Frank who matters for them. They can do whatever 
is necessary to his wife and child, but they need to keep him 
unbefuddled and completely conscious until the last minute. 


> Elkins again:
> 
> > And besides, who ever heard of a "Reverse Memory Charm," anyway?  
> > There's no such thing in canon. 
> 
> OK, now, that really hurt.  

I agree, but I will be tough, I will be brave, and soak it up, as you 
put it. /me calms herself with the soothing passage about the 
Gondorian heads she has used so effectively to help Elkins recover 
from a nervous breakdown. 

Cindy to Elkins:
>And 
> you said you were agnostic on the subject of Memory Charms and were 
> willing to work with me if I'd go along on Avery.  I feel soiled 
> somehow.  

Well, that's what happens to those who marry for reverse-memory 
charms. 

> Reverse Memory Charms are not *directly* mentioned in canon, true.  
> You know, kind of the way Avery's backstory isn't directly mentioned 
> in canon.  <g> But the Reverse Memory Charm *clues* are there.  

Take that, Elkins! 

> There's also the fact that Memory Charm Neville is so darn 
> *obvious*.  I'd say 98% of the people who read the first four books 
> work out Memory Charm Neville completely on their own.  Is JKR so 
> comfortable with her fancy new husband and her fancy new mansion and 
> her fancy new wallet that she's not even going to *try* to shock us 
> with Neville's backstory?  I just can't accept that.  I can't and I 
> won't! ::holds breath, turns red in the face::

JKR, unless you oblige us, we will be holding you personally 
responsible for Cindy's death!!!!

/me turns to comfort Cindy. "Can't you start breathing again? Just 
until OotP comes out, at least? Then you could decide if you want to 
suffocate yourself, based on the actual book? No?"

Eileen

PS. 

>But I must point out 
> that I *still* haven't heard an alternative backstory explanation of 
> what is going on with Neville and Trevor.  
> 
> The challenge still stands.  ::looks around the room hopefully::

I'll think about it. Anything to keep out of TOADKEEPER. 




From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu  Mon Feb 25 21:39:09 2002
From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:39:09 -0000
Subject: Marauders learning to be animagi, SnapeFAQ
In-Reply-To: <20020225212606.64392.qmail@web9502.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a5eatt+na4f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35734

Heidi said:
> I don't think he can become an animagus (or if he
> could, he'd be a wolf) because if he did, then
> wouldn't it seem that being in another form would
> prevent the transformation from happening, and thus he
> would've been able to use becoming an animagus as a
> cure for the monthly lycanthropy?
>
> In other words, if he could be a bunny or even a
> bobcat, would the moon have the same affect on him?

Well, evidently not, as you then go on to theorize that he *did*
transform (to a cute fluffy bunny rabbit, no less--snicker!), but that
the moon worked its mojo anyway, rendering the Animagus effect useless.

But it's definitely a cute theory! (and not just because of Bugsy)

I think he *could* become an Animagus, but just has never seen the
point of it. For one thing, there is the danger that he'd become a
wolf, and Remus probably doesn't want to equate his own nature that
closely with that of the wolf. For another, there's a danger that he
would become something else, and being one animal once a month is
probably enough for the poor guy. He doesn't need the confusion of
being two animals.


Heidi went on to valiantly defend my honour, saying:
> Gwendolyn Grace, who has a long history of excellent
> Snape posts and Snapexpertise, is in the middle of
> spending about 100+ hours writing the Snape FAQ. She's
> ploughed through about 28,000 messages so far, and is
> doing a thorough job on covering all the oft-discussed
> topics revolving around the Potions Master.

I'd just like to add that anyone who *really* wants to help out on
compiling the information on Snape into easy Q/A categories and
format, once I've gotten caught up (8,565 messages to go--and
counting), is WELCOME to email me off-list and work with me on getting
this monster document together. It will not be quite as long as the
Humongous Bigfile, but we might come close.

Gwen




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Mon Feb 25 21:49:50 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:49:50 -0000
Subject: Defense Again (filk)
Message-ID: <a5ebhu+km90@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35736

Defense Again 

(To the tune of Cole Porter's Don't Fence Me In)

Dedicated to Pippin

THE SCENE: Office of the Headmaster. DUMBLEDORE dictates a letter to 
the classified section of the Daily Prophet.

DUMBLEDORE
Oh, there's a job, vacant job, that at Hogwarts I must fill
Defense Again
It must be somebody who'll refuse to students kill
Defense Again

Someone who M.O.M will not be indictin'
A modest kind of soul who'll avoid limelightin'
Someone once a month who won't be people bitin'
Defense again

Pixies don't loose, with no turban or disturbin'
Underground activities.
In ev'ry class, you must remark upon Arts Dark 
Without rank proclivities

Through the offices of Snape you won't be prowlin'
You'll see the full moon but you won't start howlin'
At the Secret Chambers, you won't throw the towel in
Defense again

Someone who knows Grindylows without using windy prose
Defense again
Someone who'll teach `em duels without lookin' like a fool
Defense again

You'll only write about what you have done in person
You will not target students with forbidden cursin'
In blood of unicorns you won't be immersin'
Defense again

No polyjuice, no Avada by our DADA
Underneath some slick disguise
You won't use dwarves, no more singin' they'll be bringin',
That's a thing we all despise. 

We need someone who more than one year will make it
We need someone good, who will not just fake it
I only I could get Severus Snape to take it
..
Defense again. 

  - CMC

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





From Edblanning at aol.com  Mon Feb 25 22:35:38 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:35:38 EST
Subject: Fudge is Way Evil/ Accurate attribution of quotes - another plea.
Message-ID: <183.429ab79.29ac163a@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35737

Dicentra:

> Eloise later demands:
> 
> Dicentra, I want that cape and pipe back. Now. I can't do dramatic
> swirls with only a deerstalker.
> 
> Dicentra responds:
> 
> Hey, the pipe and the cape go to whoever is making a dramatic
> revelation at the time (rehashed or not). It just turned up whilst I
> was composing the FIDEDIGNO speech. Honest. When you have something
> 

Eloise:
Sort of like Fawkes?

E
> loise continues:
> 
> P.S. I've always wanted to say how cool I think your name is.
> 
> Dicentra answers:
> 
> ::blush:: Yes, it's a cool name-that's why I chose it! And 40 points
> to Gryffindor if you can tell me what Dicentra spectabilis alba means.
> 
> 

Bleeding Heart - the white variety, although at the moment you look more of a 
 *rosa*!
I have planted both in my garden. I'm a lousy gardener, but I like plants.
Can I have my 40 points, please?

Right. Better get this back OT, before the Mods send out the Howlers.

>Dicentra says:

>So, Black was laughing, was he? Do we hear that from Sirius when he
>tells his side of the story? Does he say, "as soon as Peter
>disappeared the absurdity of it all struck me and I couldn't help but
>laugh?" No! Why would Sirius be laughing? I maintain that he wasn't
>laughing at all--maybe sobbing, maybe convulsing in agony, maybe
>standing there, stunned, but not laughing like a madman. I maintain
>that Fudge willfully inserted that detail into his version of events
>to make Sirius look bad. 

>Eloise says:

>No, sorry I agree with those who think that Sirius *was* hysterical,
>and with good reason. Weren't there other witnesses? (shaky ground as
>it doesn't seem to matter really in the framing-of-Sirius scenario)

>Holly responds:

>...I must strongly protest against Sirius being branded 'hysterical'
>(although he had every reason to be).

Eloise replies:
Well.....
First of all...I see no criticism in declaring Sirius' reaction 'hysterical'. 
Yes, the term was first coined as almost a purgoritive: the kind of behavior 
that *only* a woman would fall prey to. It is certainly used in this way, 
still. But *true* hysteria, I would say, has no purgoritive overtones. 
Someone else a few days ago eloquently described just why Sirius would 
descend into hysterical laughter (unfortunately I seem to have deleted it) 
but the grief, the irony , the sheer cunning and cleverness of Peter's having 
managed to get the Potters killed, escape and frame him would be enough to 
provoke an inappropriate reaction in anyone. Laughter is often an unbidden 
reaction to grief/ embarassment/ fear - all sorts of unwelcome emotions and I 
do seriously think that the combination of grief, anger and fear together 
with an appreciation of how cleverly he had been outwitted ( by one not noted 
for his cleverness and by one moreover whom he had never suspected and always 
regarded as in his shadow) could easily provoke hysterical laughter. This 
then is misrepresented as the laughter of one who is mad, not mad with rage, 
but simply mad and gloating over achieving his aim.

Secondly, as I have said before, I think this matter of Sirius losing control 
( and come on, he *is* the kind of guy to lose control) is rather crucial in 
understanding what actually happened - particularly when we come to discuss 
whether anyone (Fudge) had anything to do with it.

I have argued that Pettigrew's escape plan has the hallmarks of being 
planned. He must have brought blood-stained robes (or else he would have had 
to conjour them just before or  after attacking the muggles, leaving him 
vulnerable to Sirius) and the finger- removal must surely have been planned ( 
unless it was an accidental by-product of blasting the muggles behind his 
back). And did he really sit back and wait for Sirius? No, he went after him 
with the express intention of framing him.

*But* ..   lets look at the various possibilities.
1)    a *compmos mentis* Sirius, with no Pettigrew accomplice needed only to 
explain exactly what had happened, the wand PI'd and all is cleared up.
2)   a hysterical Sirius, with no Pettigrew accomplice - well, Pettigrew 
would have time to escape, but Sirius could appeal from Azkaban to prove his 
wand innocent - no mention of even attempting this.
3)  a *compos mentis* Sirius *with* a Pettigrew accomplice. Now here, he can 
be framed. But we need to perform a wand switch to be certain.
4)   a hysterical Sirius *with*  a Pettigrew accomplice. Now his 'conviction' 
is certain: a 'confession' *and* the opportunity  to frame him by both false 
testimony and a wand-switch.

So in other words, by my reasoning, if Sirius didn't become hysterical, then 
Pettigrew *must* have had an accomplice to be sure of being in the clear.
(Yes, I know he became a rat, but surely he must have wanted the possibility 
of one day being human again? Spend your life as a rat? Might as well go to 
Azkaban. In addition to which, the plan may well have been hatched *before* 
Voldemort's unfortunate accident).
Pettigrew couldn't have predicted Sirius becoming hysterical, *ergo*, he had 
an accomplice. But if Sirius *was* hysterical, it  made the job easier.

FIE!

Now, I'm willing to concede that the laughter may be Fudge's fabrication, but 
I repeat that hysteria at this point would be totally a understandable, even 
commendable (in that it shows the depth of feeling involved) response. No 
disrespect to Sirius in any way, Holly. *But*.....whether he was or wasn't, 
we need an accomplice to frame him.

Eloise, suddenly finding herself cloaked, swishes dramatically from the 
scene, quietly choking on the smoke billowing from that dratted pipe.

PS. Can I commend Dicentra for how clearly she named the various list members 
she quoted in her post. I think she must have been reading my mind. Several 
times in the last few days, I have found myself either attributed with, or 
*apparently* attributed with things I haven't said. If it's happening to me, 
then it's happening to other people too ( and I'm sure that I've done it, 
too, only I'm now aware of it and am trying not to). I think the problem 
generally happens when we quote  a post which itself contains quotes. When 
these are snipped, the attributions sometimes become unclear, misleading, or 
simply wrong. *Please* can we try and make sure that we attribute things 
clearly. It's very irritating to be misquoted ( especially when someone 
attributes to you a quote that you were yourself arguing against) and it 
makes it difficult to follow the threads back if you're directed to the wrong 
person's post.
Thank you. I feel better now.



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




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Mon Feb 25 22:37:05 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:37:05 -0000
Subject: Fudge is Way Evil and I have the acronyms to prove it With a helping of EDGE
In-Reply-To: <a59l9g+182n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5eeah+4c6f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35738

Cindy wrote:
>I must admit I hadn't noticed how Fudge keeps that twisted smile
>just a little too long. But Elkins' treatment of Lupin's twisted 
>smile has confused me. How do we know that Fudge doesn't just have 
>Edge?

A brilliant stroke, Cindy.

But Fudge cannot be Voldemort-evil for me.

It's an intensely personal thing.

My parents were involved rather heavily with a certain bureaucracy. A 
certain rather highly placed bureaucrat, who is now so highly placed 
in another bureaucracy that a few list members might recognize the 
name if I let it drop, was our personal Fudge.

My mother was growing increasingly depressed over the havoc he was 
making of real peoples' lives, by letting his underlings get away with 
things he purported to condemn. And being a media hog, he had actually 
cultivated quite an image for himself as a reformer. Nonsense. He 
meant well. After all this time, I can still say that. He really set 
out with good ideals, and to a certain extent, still believes in them. 
He just wouldn't let himself believe that what he had really done and 
made way for, was the opposite of these ideas, even when the people 
who he was supposed to be relying on told him he had to take drastic 
reaction.

My Mother was becoming very depressed, as I said, and she started 
reading "GOF" again. She had read the books earlier that summer, when 
GOF came out, but she had not been very taken with them. However, it 
now rang completely true for her. She identified this bureaucrat as 
Cornelius Fudge. A particularily obnoxious troublemaker was her 
personal dementor: "just sucks all the happiness out of me." 

So, I have a personal stake in keeping Cornelius Fudge from being a 
Death Eater. 

Secondly, I think there's more literary appeal in making him an 
appeaser, rather than a servant of the Dark Lord. Fudge is another 
welcome patch of grey. Not all black and white. 

> You see? Something just occurred to Dumbledore that hadn't before. 
> Something about the fact that Crouch can't reveal any more. Surely, 
> Dumbledore suspects that Fudge deliberately set the dementor on 
> Crouch to silence him, so he couldn't name anymore names. Names like 
> Cornelius Fudge, I daresay.

No doubt, Dumbledore suspects Fudge is shutting Crouch up. Crouch 
would probably finger a lot of people. Avery, for example. If the 
fourth man theory is right, Crouch could take out Fudge's political 
career with that accusal. No, better to set the dementor on him, 
before he turns on Avery, Malfoy etc. Even without a current Voldemort 
plot, Crouch could perhaps severely wreck their previous defenses. 

> ::Spins about again, cape swirling.::
> 
> And that's not all. In the next few paragraphs, Dumbledore explains 
> how Crouch was instrumental in bringing Voldemort back to life. 
Fudge 
> appears to disbelieve:
> 
> "'See here, Dumbledore,' said Fudge, and Harry was astonished to see 
> a slight smile dawning on his face, 'you--you can't seriously 
believe 
> that. You-Know-Who--back? Come now...'"
> 
> What is the meaning of this smile? Harry certainly doesn't know. But 
> the smile cannot be insignificant because it persists for several 
> more minutes.
> 
> "Dumbledore glanced around at Harry and saw that he was awake, but 
> shook his head and said, 'I am afraid I cannot permit you to 
question 
> Harry tonight.'
> 
> "Fudge's curious smile lingered. He too glanced at Harry..."
> 
> Fudge questions Harry's reliability. Dumbledore explains how Harry's 
> story fits in with the facts. 
> 
> "Fudge still had that strange smile on his face. Once again, he 
> glanced at Harry before answering."

I thought he had that strange smile, because Dumbledore was taking 
seriously the ravings of this mentally unbalanced child. Just like 
Dumbledore not to read Rita Skeeter's column, and take Harry's every 
word. After all, the mention of the smile is every time linked with 
his glancing at Harry. 

> "'You place too much importance, and you always have done, on the 
so-
> called purity of blood!'"
> 
> Missed it the first time, didn't you? Since when did we ever hear 
> Fudge say anything about pure blood? Never! (I already looked. He 
> doesn't.) But now Dumbledore reveals to us, the alert reader, that 
> Fudge subscribes to the very core doctrine that Voldemort preached. 
> The accusation seems to come out of nowhere! There's no reason for 
> Dumbledore to mention it. Fudge certainly hasn't. But there it is, 
> nonetheless, another clue to Fudge's true leanings.

Yes, but if, as seems obvious, the "Parting of the Ways" is meant to 
remind the reader of 1920s/30s appeasement, and I think it'd be hard 
to deny it, even though it may not parallel it, there were plenty of 
people who shared, in smaller doses, Hitler's views about the unfit, 
the Jewish etc. And because of that, they were less wary of the evil 
that was staring them in the face. 

Eileen

PS. A meagre attempt, but I just can't let Fudge be evil. 




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Mon Feb 25 22:47:41 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:47:41 -0000
Subject: Fudge is Way Evil and I have the acronyms to prove it With a helping of EDGE
In-Reply-To: <a5eeah+4c6f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5eeud+mn16@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35739

Of course, my reply about Fudge being not evil was to Dicentra in main 
(except for the line on top) and not Cindy. I accidently backspaced on 
the Dicentra wrote:

Sorry.

/me blushes in shame.

Eileen




From tanie_05 at hotmail.com  Mon Feb 25 23:19:52 2002
From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 23:19:52 -0000
Subject: Pre-Hogwarts Harry
In-Reply-To: <a5cuba+rru7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5egqo+32c4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35740

conquistas2000 wrote:
> Hi, I'm new here

Well then, welcome. Glad to meet you. :)
 
> How come nobody spilled the beans to Harry that he's a wizard 
(before
> Hogwarts)?
> 
> In SS/PS, the wizard folks recognize Harry (Tip their hat, etc..), 
and
> happens often enough that Harry notices it.  In the 10 years, why
> didn't any of the wizards/witches strike up a conversaion with Harry
> or tell of his origins?

The way I see it is thast maybe they figured he already knew that he 
was a wizard. He's living with his family rather than complete 
strangers. (He would have been better off though.) Remember Hagrid 
was shocked when Harry didn't know at the Hut-on-the-Rock. (I think 
that's what it's called. I forgot & my aunt's borrowed my copy.)

> If Mrs. Figgs is really a witch, why didn't she also tell Harry that
> he's a wizard?  Maybe she is, but Harry is just too thick headed to
> notice.  If she is showing Harry all the cats she owned, in hopes 
that
> Harry will notice all the cats outside his window belongs to Figgs.

But who would suspect an "old lady"(I think Figgs is under disguise, 
that she's not old at all. But I could be wrong.) Honestly, if the 
little old lady with a whole bunch of cats in my neighborhood turned 
out be a witch, I'd be surprised. She, of all people, would be the 
*very* last one I'd even think about. But hey, it's been said that 
the one you least suspect are always the ones who'll suprise you. 
Hmmmm.....

-Kyrstyne(who'll be watching that old lady down the street)




From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Tue Feb 26 00:14:43 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:14:43 -0500
Subject: Some Snape thoughts
Message-ID: <77025E69.40DE65D6.6E93A4F5@netscape.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35741

I know we have discussed Snape so much that he's up there with Princess Diana for being under the microscope (now *there's* a SHIP) - but I really don't recall seeing the confused and contradictory thoughts below mentioned before.

When Harry got cross with his aunt at the beginning of POA, he broke her glass, then blew her up.  Later, in GOF, when Snape cracks his notorious 'I see no difference' remark, (to demonstrate to any vampires present that he is not toothist), Harry imagines all sorts of horrible things happening to Snape - but they don't.

I wonder if Snape was using all his magical powers at that time to resist Harry's anger, and is in fact *deliberately* winding him up, so that, in due course, Harry can do something spectacular, with or without his wand, when made sufficiently angry.

I do not suggest that this explains very much of the mysteries surrounding Snape, but it may be a factor in some of his classroom behaviour, for example, with Neville and Hermione.

-----

I'm still mulling Pippin's point that the term Death Eater may be linked to a specific practice aimed at prolonging life.  This practice could be addictive.  Could it then be that what Snape did that convinced Dumbledore of his sincerity was to give up the practice?  For Snape to be living every day of his life resisting an awful temptation rings true to me.  It would be nice to link this withdrawal to Snape's sallowness and hair (and half-hearted Karkaroff's teeth), but I think MWPP contradict this as predating his DE days.  More difficult is the question of what Lucius Malfoy and the others are subsisting on in the meantime.  Either Voldemort in his heyday made large quantities of his faux elixir, or they can make it themselves (but for the 'DE' term to work they would be bumping off wizards)...  Oh well, I throw it out FWIW.

------

Lastly an amusing thought on Hermione's teeth.  We make great play of Snape's nastiness in saying 'I see no difference' - but Hermione herself buys into it in her remarks about her parents.  Imagine the converstaion in Pomfrey's surgery.

Pomfrey: Have I gone too far? I'm sure they're smaller now than they originally were
Hermione: I see no difference

Not that I pretend to understand all this high falutin stuff about subversive interpretations...

David
-- 




__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop at Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/

Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/




From ladjables at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 26 00:20:05 2002
From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:20:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Snape's Wife/Toadkeeper/Acronym for Fudge
Message-ID: <20020226002005.85988.qmail@web20405.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35742

Don'tquitehaveatheoryyet, but before "Mrs. Snape" is
rejected as an entirely implausible and ridiculous
notion, and consigned to the trashheap of discarded
ideas, answer me this: is there any evidence in the
canon that Snape is NOT married?

I remember JKR replying to a question about Hogwarts
professors having spouses.  IIRC, she stated that they
haven't been introduced yet for a reason.  Now, this
could mean that any of the teachers, from Dumbledore
to Flitwick, could be married.  Why not Snape?  I
mean, Snape has a huge fan club on this list, who's to
say in Potterverse he doesn't have a wife somewhere,
an apple-cheeked housewitch who lives in their small
cottage with the white picket fence, tending the
garden and darning the little Snapes' socks?  Snape
strikes me as the kind of man who would love and
benefit from having a homemaker wife!    

I know, I know, your mind rebels against this picture
of Snapey conjugal harmony. But JKR has a gift for
turning the obvious on its head.  Perhaps we've been
stereotyping poor Severus all along, assuming because
he stalks around by himself that he's a loner, and his
less than stellar people skills would make a personal
relationship impossible.  But!  All we really know
about Severus, aside from being mean and petty, is
that he's an intensely private man with a dark past
linked to Voldemort.  Would he be the kind of man to
display photos of his wife, or of the first cat
Severus jr. poisoned?  I think not.  But a wife may
well be the key to Severus.
   
Loving Wife Scenario: 
Perhaps she rescued him, helped him overcome his
disappointments in life, and maintain his sanity.  He
pours his heart out to her everyday, explaining how
much he hates that dreadful Potter child, and how he
wishes he could abnegate his responsibilites to
aforesaid brat.  Or he worries about the future,
because of his Death-Eater past.  But, Mrs. Snape
allays (not eliminates) Severus' fears, reminding him
that Dumbledore has vouched for him, and she will
always love him no matter what.  But for that powerful
palliative and torturing Neville, Snape would not be
able to make it through life.

Obviously, Mrs. Snape could be Severus' undoing, in
more ways than one.  Perhaps that's why he's on edge
in GoF, he realizes that the impending clash with
Voldemort could render connubial bliss obsolete.  He
has everything to lose this time, like those who
defect from the Mafia and try to build a new life,
only to get caught by their old associates.

Shrew Scenario:
Mrs. Snape is actually a miserable fishwife who drives
poor Severus to drink.  That's why he's always nasty
to his students and snarling at everyone-problems with
the missus.  And who knows if there's marriage
counselling in the Potterverse, unless Dumbledore
moonlights.  He develops a headache at the end of GoF,
just imagining the diatribe she'll unleash when she
finds out Voldemort is back.  Then there are the more
ominous undertones:  Could Mrs. Snape be/turn evil? 
Could she be used against Severus?

Widower Scenario: 
Perhaps Mrs. Snape was murdered, and that was Snape's
wake-up call to leave the Death-Eaters.  Snape as
widower?  It could work, can't you see him, driven mad
with grief, vowing never to love another living thing?
 Snape seriously reminds me of Heathcliff sometimes,
losing his one true love, not just to another man, but
to death.  Incidentally L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S works well
with the Heathcliff complex.  But anyway, with
Voldemort back, Snape begins to plot revenge, and it
gets him unnaturally excited. 

But I'm putting the cart before the horse.  I was
trying to figure out what kind of person the elusive
Mrs. Snape could be, and I hadn't even discovered her
identity!  So I decided to review all the brilliant
ideas already acronymmed and archived.  I suppose he
still could have carried a torch for Lily all along. 
Perhaps he was behind the greenhouse with Florence and
she's Mrs. Snape after all!  Maybe Sirius even dated
the future Mrs. Snape, and this still grates on poor
Severus' nerves!  It's not the kind of thing that
would make them closer.  Imagine what was going
through his head when he realized Sirius Black was
back at Hogwarts, and he had to shake hands with him! 
Memo to self: get Florence a chastity belt.  

So I settled on that, Florence isn't Mrs. Lestrange,
she's Snape's wife.  And there's a reason why she
hasn't turned up...

Perhaps she's at home, the Happy Homemaker, and JKR
has some speical plan for her.  I wondered, as they
were contemporaries, if she had been Lily's friend? 
It's not necessary, but it's intriguing.  Now, if
she's not dead, and not with Severus, are they
estranged, and why?  Sirius?  Oh the possibilities...

Okay, I know this isn't Harry Potter Turns, but I
would really love to get feedback on this, because I
think it would be a significant development if Snape
had a wife.  It adds another dimension to his
character, and ups the ante on what's at stake. 
Happily married, dead or estranged, what is her
infuence on Severus? If not dead, who is this mystery
woman-Sirius' ex-lover, Lily's friend, or was she
planted by Voldemort to keep an eye on Snape?  Eh, too
Total Recall.  But could she indeed betray him?  Does
Snape want to protect her, or does he suspect her?  If
she is dead, is her death the reason he switched
sides?  The floor is open for discussion.

Pshht! you all say, Snape has a missus!  Now look
here, would you really be surprised if JKR sprung
something like this on us?!  Tabouli, would you oblige
me with an acronym?
  
Cindysphynx wrote:
>The *real* reason Uncle Algie desperately tries to
>force magic out of Neville (and the reason Gran 
>cries when it finally works) is because Neville is
>the Longbottoms' ToadKeeper.  

Cindy, I have to ask, were you thinking of Taran,
Assistant Pigkeeper when you wrote this?! 

Inspired by Fudge's struthious attitude, I'd like to
make a contribution or two to the Fudge Acronym
Collection(please don't laugh, I'm no Tabouli):
H.E.A.D.I.N.S.A.N.D.-Hypocritical Effete Asinine Dolt
Is Nefarious Servant, Actually Nursing Darkness
O.S.T.R.I.C.H.-Ornamental Stubborn Toady Reigns
Incompetently; Catalysis for Horror

Ama/ladjables, who would have a heart attack if
Snape's wife is the witch with the lunch trolley
aboard the Hogwarts Express. 




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com



From degroote at altavista.com  Tue Feb 26 00:46:22 2002
From: degroote at altavista.com (Vicky DeGroote)
Date: 25 Feb 2002 16:46:22 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 1697
Message-ID: <20020226004622.27137.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35743

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020225/31a98c85/attachment.ksh>

From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Tue Feb 26 01:42:06 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 01:42:06 -0000
Subject: Fudge is Way Evil/ Accurate attribution of quotes - another plea.
In-Reply-To: <183.429ab79.29ac163a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a5ep5e+l42p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35744


> Holly sez:
> >...I must strongly protest against Sirius being branded 'hysterical'
> >(although he had every reason to be).
> 
> Eloise replies:
> Well.....
> First of all...I see no criticism in declaring Sirius' reaction
'hysterical'. ...as I have said before, I think this matter of Sirius
losing control 
> ( and come on, he *is* the kind of guy to lose control) is rather
crucial in 
> understanding what actually happened - particularly when we come to
discuss 
> whether anyone (Fudge) had anything to do with it.
> 
> 
> FIE!
> 
> Now, I'm willing to concede that the laughter may be Fudge's
fabrication, but 
> I repeat that hysteria at this point would be totally a
understandable, even 
> commendable (in that it shows the depth of feeling involved)
response. No 
> disrespect to Sirius in any way, Holly. *But*.....whether he was or
wasn't, 
> we need an accomplice to frame him.

Dicentra replies:
Hey, you're right.  Sirius's true demeanor after the explosion (was it
an AK or something else?) MUST have to do with how he was framed. And
judging from the fact that he doesn't elaborate on how he was framed
(simply says that Peter left behind a finger and beat him in the
duel), it's entirely possible that he wasn't all that *compos mentis*
at the moment.

> 
> Eloise, suddenly finding herself cloaked, swishes dramatically from the 
> scene, quietly choking on the smoke billowing from that dratted pipe.

See?  It's uncanny how the things show up right when you need them.
> 
> PS. Can I commend Dicentra for how clearly she named the various
list members 
> she quoted in her post.

You should know that it required a bit of work: I pulled sections into
Word from various posts that followed the original, got rid of the
blasted >>>>s, stuck it into Notebook (to translate the curly quotes
into straight quotes) and cut and pasted it into this cursed Web view.
It didn't show up, so I pasted a couple more times and finally all
three copies showed up. So if you want people to do it that cleanly
all the time, you might not want to hold your breath waiting.

--Dicentra, who didn't exercise as much care on this post  







From jferer at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 26 02:16:55 2002
From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 02:16:55 -0000
Subject: AK stealing souls
In-Reply-To: <a5e1t8+itcl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5er6n+t4q2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35745

jklb66:"Maybe Avada Kedavra steals a person's essence as well 
as killing them, robbing them of existence even in the afterlife.  
Also, it makes those who use it more powerful, giving it a triple-
whammy against it.  It kills, it steals the victims' sacred 
soul/spirit/whatever, and (as a special extra bonus) it makes the 
murderer more powerful."

Interesting idea. I can see Avada Kedavra stealing someone's essence, 
although I'm not as persuaded that essence helps the murderous caster. 
Wouldn't Cedric's good essence 'damage' Pettigrew, at least from 
Voldemort's point of view?

Clearly there are other ways to kill with a curse. Harry and Ron both 
point wands at people in a threatening way (Black, Pettigrew, 
Lockhart) and they certainly don't know A.K. The people who the wands 
were pointed at certainly felt threatened enough to keep quiet. I've 
thought there's likely a spell that just "punches" somebody hard 
enough in the chest to stop their heart or something like that.

Your point about A.K. being Unforgivable - more so, it seems, than 
other kinds of murder - argues for the soul-stealing idea.

Now, a suggestion: could you put up a profile so we know your name? I 
can't pronounce "jklb66." We like to get on a first-name basis here!




From brewpub44 at earthlink.net  Tue Feb 26 02:43:59 2002
From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 02:43:59 -0000
Subject: A Different Look at Snape
In-Reply-To: <a58b2t+m9gv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5espf+ppkq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35746

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> 
> The Barkeep wrote:
> 	A post explaining Snape's why Snape's hateful behavior  may 
> have a positive side.
> 
> Oh, yeah. My kid had a Snape-clone (in behavior not 
> appearance) for sixth grade. Understand, I do not like this 
> woman. I still grit my teeth when I think of her.  She hurt my kid 
> and I'm not happy about it. But...
> 
> 
> Pippin

Your story is a sad one, I'm sorry, and I don't mean to belittle it. 
But there's a difference between math and potions. If you don't get 
your fractions properly reduced to lowest common denominators, it 
won't get you killed. Screw up a antidote and you die.

If you go back to my original post on WWII paratrooper training, 
those soldiers with various disabilities, physical or otherwise, 
would be forced out and either drop out of the army or become regular 
infantry.

So I think Snape wants those unable to grasp potions to drop out (is 
that an option by GoF? I don't remember), because it's better to not 
do potions at all than do them badly.

A Barkeep in Diagon Alley




From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Tue Feb 26 03:10:08 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:10:08 -0000
Subject: Rumour about Book 5 release date
In-Reply-To: <a5e54h+t9vo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5euag+95hp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35747

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "linda_mccabe" <lmccabe at s...> wrote:
>  I simply don't believe the rumor that the book 
> is coming out in May.  

_Science Fiction Chronical (You can find it in the B&N magazine
racks) reports a rumor that OP will be delayed due to JKR having
problems with plot complexity.  No time given.





From brewpub44 at earthlink.net  Tue Feb 26 03:25:26 2002
From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:25:26 -0000
Subject: A Different Look at Snape
In-Reply-To: <a5a0k0+1h2s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5ev76+tjgq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35748

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elfundeb" <elfundeb at a...> wrote:
> So he inflicts some of 
> his own and Harry learns to take it.  Much of Snape's behavior 
toward 
> Harry, beginning with the "new celebrity" line in PS/SS right on 
> through his dramatic reading of the Witch Weekly article in GoF, 
> appears to be calculated to remind Harry that he is not in control 
> and he is not immune from danger.  I think Snape truly believes 
that 
> if he doesn't suppress any invincibility tendencies Harry may have, 
> then LV will have been handed a great weapon.  And Snape, who is a 
> traitor in LV's eyes, cannot afford to have the good guys lose 
> because he would not survive an LV victory.  So he has every 
> incentive to do everything he can to enhance Harry's chances of 
> success.

Hmmm, I like it. I was painting Snape as being a really good guy just 
misunderstood, but you're idea adds a touch of realism to it. Snape 
is also motivated by self-preservation, not just trying to be tough 
so his kids learn. Let's face it, don't most of us have selfish 
motives, even if it's just a teensy tiny bit? So yeah, this works for 
me.

> 
> The flip side to this is that while Snape SEEMS to favor the 
> Slytherins, he is not equipping them with the real world survival 
> skills that the Gryffindors are getting.  

Let's add this to the above angle: if Snape was tough on the 
Slytherins, the kids may complain to their parents, some of whom are 
known DEs. If Snape is trying to avoid exposing his betrayal, and 
keep up good appearances to these people, then he has to favor the 
Slytherins.

The only thing that I don't like about your last paragraph (and this 
is solely my opinion), is this: I feel Snape is trying to be a father-
figure to Draco, someone Draco can turn to when his own father fails 
him in some way. I predict Lucius will fail the boy in a horrible 
way, and Draco will have to depend on Snape. But that's not entirely 
supported by what's been written so far, so we'll have to see on that 
one.

A Barkeep in Diagon Alley




From degroote at altavista.com  Tue Feb 26 04:36:05 2002
From: degroote at altavista.com (Vicky DeGroote)
Date: 25 Feb 2002 20:36:05 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 1695
Message-ID: <20020226043605.1911.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35749

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20020225/ca2869cf/attachment.ksh>

From Caeser56 at si.rr.com  Tue Feb 26 04:57:37 2002
From: Caeser56 at si.rr.com (caes56)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:57:37 -0000
Subject: AK Stealing Souls
Message-ID: <a5f4k1+p0in@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35750

       Hey guys!

-------------jklb66 wrote:-------------
Maybe Avada Kedavra steals a person's essence as well 
as killing them, robbing them of existence even in the afterlife.  
Also, it makes those who use it more powerful, giving it a triple-
whammy against it.  It kills, it steals the victims' sacred 
soul/spirit/whatever, and (as a special extra bonus) it makes the 
murderer more powerful.
---------------------------------------

---jferer wrote:-----------------------
Interesting idea. I can see Avada Kedavra stealing someone's essence,
although I'm not as persuaded that essence helps the murderous 
caster. Wouldn't Cedric's good essence 'damage' Pettigrew, at least 
from Voldemort's point of view?

Clearly there are other ways to kill with a curse. Harry and Ron 
both point wands at people in a threatening way (Black, Pettigrew, 
Lockhart) and they certainly don't know A.K. The people who the 
wands were pointed at certainly felt threatened enough to keep 
quiet. I've thought there's likely a spell that just "punches" 
somebody hard enough in the chest to stop their heart or something 
like that.
----------------------------------------

     Actually, I have a little seperate idea that perhaps explains 
why these curses are "Unforgiveable," and it's fairly straightfoward 
I think. Rather than having some sort of "soul stealing" power 
behind it, I think AK is just as the canon states- a curse that 
kills quite quickly and evenly. The reason, IMHO, is more likely 
these are the only spells that are developed that are SPECIFICALLY 
and ONLY designed to kill, harm, or limit another person. It's the 
only use for these spells, they can't do anything else. Other spells 
can be used to kill, that much is certain. However, they can also be 
used for other methods. Take for instance the first Quidditch match 
in SS, Hermione uses a simple spell to summon a fire, with the 
intention of distracting Snape. Couldn't she just have easily 
summoned it inside of Snape's Lungs or body, which would surely be 
lethal? But that's not an Unforgiveable curse! To sum up and 
finalize it: AK, Imperious, and Cruciatus are Unforgiveable curses 
because their sole and only use is to harm others. Yes, other spells 
are harmful if used incorrectly, but also could have other uses. I 
know most people would immediately think about the explosive spell 
Pettigrew used to frame Sirius Black- but couldn't that, as corny as 
it sounds, be used in mining? Or Destroying old Structures? What 
about in rescue situations? I know these are odd situations, and 
also fairly uncommon, but it still can be used for other things. 
Also, it may have not been a unique spell("create fireball"), but 
rather, it may also have just been a summon fire spell like 
Hermione's but with a much higher intensity. Remember when Moody was 
teaching the classes about the curses? He said that they wouldn't 
have enough power behind the spell, that he "doubted if you could 
give me more than a bloody nose." So, taking this into 
consideration, could spells be used in different grades, such that 
the explosive spell really isn't an unforgiveable curse because it's 
not really it's own spell?
         Any ideas? Counters? 

-Vin





From jktaylor at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 26 06:06:12 2002
From: jktaylor at yahoo.com (jktaylor)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 06:06:12 -0000
Subject: Foe Glass
In-Reply-To: <a57up4+cmvp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5f8kk+k34n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35751

A newbie thought on Snape and the Foe Glass:

When I first read it, I thought that Snape saw himself in the glass, 
because he is his own (worst?!?) enemy.  His petulant closed- 
mindedness has kept him from seeing the truth in the past and may 
prove to be his downfall in the future.

The moment before Moody/Crouch was "Stupefy!-ed", Harry saw  
Dumbledore, McGonagall and Snape in the glass.  After Snape steps 
over the unconscious body, he sees himself.  If the glass was truly 
still showing Moody/Couch's enemies, surely Snape's face wouldn't be 
the only one specified as visible, would it?  Perhaps "stupefy!-ing" 
Moody/Crouch enabled the glass to show a new onlooker his foes?



--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "filo_roll" <filo_roll at y...> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I have a thing about the Foe Glass in Moody/Couch's office.  
<SNIPPED>
 The 
> reason Snape sees his own glaring face in the "mirror" is because 
he, 
> McGonagall, and Dumbledore were coming to get Moody/Couch and so 
they 
> were his enemies, thus their images appeared on the Glass.  The 
face 
> Snape sees is NOT a reflection, rather it is a image left over 
from 
> when the Foe Glass was warning Moody/Couch.  Therefore, there is 
> still a slight possibility that Snape could be a vampire.
> 
> filo-roll





From skelkins at attbi.com  Tue Feb 26 09:57:37 2002
From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:57:37 -0000
Subject: Flitwick, Amos Diggory (WAS Enviable and pitiable characters)
In-Reply-To: <a5e9s7+t92h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5fm6h+tlig@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35752

About Professor Flitwick, Catlady wrote:

> Yes, but if he were my House master (Flitwick is Master of 
> Ravenclaw and I am a Ravenclaw) I don't think I could bear to go to 
> him with any problem about sex or broken hearts or other students 
> picking on me... This short guy who squeaks in excitement and falls 
> off his desk... 

<laughs>  

True.  But then, when it comes to that sort of thing, pretty 
much everyone except for the female Hufflepuff students is out of 
luck.  Professor Sprout seems like a real sweetheart, but I very much 
doubt that any of the boys would go to her with their personal 
problems.  And while the McGonagall types were always my absolute 
favorite teachers when I was a student, their demeanor does not 
encourage personal revelation.  And as for Snape...

Well.  Um.  Snape's not exactly the nurturing type.


About pitiful Amos Diggory, Jo Serenadust wrote:

> While I agree with you that he's unlikely to be seduced by the 
> dark side, I think that he may be vulnerable to being unwittingly 
> used by them to harm Harry. . . .I fear that as time goes by, that 
> grief will turn to bitterness and anger, and who is most likely to 
> be the target?

I fear that you're right.  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Amos did
cause Harry some problems in Book Five.  The thought still makes me 
want to drop my head down on the keyboard and weep, though.

Evidently, I've gone soft.


Catlady suggested:

> The only way I can think of for him to be seduced by the Dark Side 
> (the murderers of his son! on whom surely he seeks more vengeance!) 
> now is if some Death Eater recruiter persuaded him that Voldemort's 
> Dark Magic and Immortality Spells could bring Cedric back to life.

Oh, now *that's* a nasty thought!  Amos Diggory meets the Monkey's 
Paw.  Ugly.

If poor Amos were actually to be seduced, though, rather than merely 
being an unaffiliated thorn in Harry's side, then I think it far more 
likely that it would happen by his becoming convinced that Harry, 
rather than anyone on the "Dark Side," had been the one to murder 
Cedric.

Strangely, while I still find that notion a very upsetting one, it 
doesn't make me want to weep *quite* so passionately as Unaffiliated-
Thorn-In-Harry's-Side-Diggory does.

Of course, Cindy doesn't believe in unaffiliated thorns.  She 
practices Constant Vigilance.  She's Tough enough to know the Truth: 
that *anyone* who opposes the triumph of Good in any way -- Ludo 
Bagman, Cornelius Fudge -- is most likely a Big Bad Evil Death Eater, 
and must be Watched Carefully At All Times.

She wrote:

> I think Amos will manifest his grief by stirring up trouble for 
> Harry at MoM. This won't be hard, after all, because *everyone* at 
> MoM is an evil DE. Fudge. Bagman. McNair. Avery. Oh sure, Harry 
> has Percy and Arthur Weasley to watch his back for him at MoM. 
> Small comfort, that.

Especially given what we all know about Arthur Weasley's unfortunate 
history with the Imperius Curse...


-- Elkins, still plumping hard for Imperius-Victim-Arthur, even if no 
one else is willing to join with her




From skelkins at attbi.com  Tue Feb 26 10:56:23 2002
From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:56:23 -0000
Subject: Life Debts, the Crouches
In-Reply-To: <f05010400b89efb6ce7ff@[66.32.49.80]>
Message-ID: <a5fpkn+86hm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35753

Cindy signed off:

> Cindy (wondering how Crouch Jr. is able to kill his father when his
> father sprung him from Azkaban, which ought to create at least a
> mini-Life Debt)

Judy wrote:

> Yeah, not to mention, Crouch Sr. sprung Crouch Jr. from his loins 
> (You can tell that I've been reading the Bible a lot lately.) You'd 
> think that would create a *big* life debt.

Hey, I'm sure that it did.  After all, just look at what *happened* 
to Crouch Jr., will you?  His plan was proceeding perfectly, he was 
all on top of things, everything was going great for him.  Then he 
kills his father, and what happens next?  Everything goes all to 
pieces, that's what!  Harry escapes from his original trap, he loses 
his second opportunity to deliver the kid to Voldemort due to a 
sudden descent into bwah-hah-hah "Mad, am I?" villain mania, and then 
he gets himself Stupified, Veritaserum'd, and Dementor-Kissed.

Clearly, violating that life-debt was a *biiiiiiig* mistake on young 
Barty's part.

Me, I think that we've been framing this life-debt business in 
completely the wrong way.  It's obviously not a bond that *restricts* 
you from taking action against someone.  After all, Pettigrew managed 
just fine in the graveyard -- sure, there was a bit of discomfort, a 
lot of not-meeting-Harry's-gaze going on there, but he pulled it off 
all right. 

No, I think that violating a life-debt is probably a lot more like 
the classical conception of what happens to someone who assaults a 
herald, or who desecrates a temple.  You do something like that, and 
the gods just *hate* you from that moment onward: everything starts 
to go wrong for you, you become far more prone to madness, and the 
universe never cuts you the slightest bit of slack ever again.


Boggles, whom I love to death for having a Geek Code in her .sig, 
wrote:

> In both cases, wouldn't the primary life debt be between Crouch Jr. 
> and his _mother_, not his father? She was the engineer of Jr.'s 
> escape - it was obviously her idea and her will that drove it. And 
> she's the one who screamed in labor for 24 hours straight (or 
> however long it was, with the state of wizarding medicine and all) 
> to give life to him. Crouch Sr.'s part in both cases was necessary 
> but minimal.

I suppose that this all rather depends on whether the metaphysical 
enforcers of life-debt are more like the Eumenides or more like the 
Goddess Athena.  ;-)

Young Crouch's fate certainly does seem to indicate, though, that 
having ones mother give her life for you does not, in and of itself, 
provide one with any particularly powerful magical protection.  It 
didn't seem to bother the dementor much.

> So perhaps Crouch Jr. owed the life-debt to his mother - but she's 
> dead now, so he's either free or (more likely, given Snape's 
> reaction to his life-debt to James) in limbo, unable to pay the 
> debt at all. Perhaps that's one reason his mental state seems so, 
> um, rumpled.

Rumpled.  Heh.  Yes.  Well, he's had quite a number of rumpling 
experiences, hasn't he?  Near-death in Azkaban, ten years of Imperius 
Curse...and I suspect that he was really pretty wrinkly to start out 
with.

But it's always seemed to me that the parricide was what really 
pushed him over his last remaining edge.  When Harry, Ron and 
Hermione go to visit Crouch/Moody the morning after the murder, he 
doesn't seem to be in very good shape at all.  He's utterly 
exhausted, he's even twitchier than usual, and he's swigging down 
that Polyjuice Potion like there's no tomorrow.  It seems possible, 
in fact, that he might even be in the very first stages of 
transforming *back* when they first run into him ("The eyelid of his 
normal eye was drooping, giving his face an even more lopsided 
appearance than usual"), which if true would certainly speak to a 
profound lapse in concentration and care on his part.

Barty sure hated his Dad, all right, but I don't get the impression 
that parricide really agreed with him very much at all.  I think that 
it added quite a few new creases to his already considerably rumpled 
mental state.


-- Elkins




From allyse1138 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 26 11:34:45 2002
From: allyse1138 at yahoo.com (allyse1138)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:34:45 -0000
Subject: ADMIN: The HPFGU Humongous Bigfile
In-Reply-To: <B8A01A2C.B247%john@walton.vu>
Message-ID: <a5frsl+ia8e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35754

Coming out of lurkdom to salute! I just wanted to let the mods and 
admin know that they did a wonderful job on this. Concise, clear, and 
coherent - ten points for your Houses, all of you. :)

Allyse




From pollux46 at hotmail.com  Tue Feb 26 12:29:11 2002
From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:29:11 -0000
Subject: Predestination Re: Harry v. Malfoy/James v.Snape
In-Reply-To: <a5dl12+kvc6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5fv2n+u84s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35755

Marina wrote:
>I have a lot of distaste for the idea that the HP universe is
>stuck in some sort of vicious cycle of fate, with the current 
Hogwarts
>generation doomed to inevitably repeat all the mistakes of the
>previous one. . . .
>And I do think there are enough differences all around to indicate
>that history is not repeating itself.
<snip on enumeration of such differences in character, actions, focus 
of each group and temperament>


I absolutely agree. I was not trying to dig up any foundation for a 
circle of fate plaguing the characters of the Potterverse. In fact 
put like that I hate the idea. What I was pointing out was that there 
are certain similarities (solely) in the way the Marauders and HRH 
deal with their schooldays' foes and that these, far from determining 
the future of the trio, could help us fill in the gaps in our 
knowledge about the previous generation's past. And 
in a book this sort of inside?out ?predestination is not unreasonable 
(though as Eloise points out if it is taken too far it can easily 
turn unsubtle). It simplifies matters. It keeps the story from being 
unnecessarily overloaded. For example, it allows the reader to 
understand the antipathy between James and Snape just with on phrase 
of Dumbledore's, no lengthy narrations of their confrontations needed?
we've already gone though all that with Harry and Draco.


Charis Julia.





From Edblanning at aol.com  Tue Feb 26 12:45:17 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 07:45:17 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape: non-Vampire, emotions vs principles
Message-ID: <6c.18141d8f.29acdd5d@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35756

Tabouli:

> I also sniff at suggestions that Snape is a principle driven intellectual 
> who wouldn't let an emotional triviality like Love Of Lily sway him.  
> Snape's personal vendetta against Harry a principled, intellectual, 
> unemotional one??  Snape's reactions to Sirius, from the shrieking about 
> his escape to the snarling, reluctant handshake, purely intellectual and 
> principle driven??  Snape being accused of disloyalty to Dumbledore by 
> Crouch/Moody, gripping the chair when Ginny gets taken by Riddle, sweeping 
> into his first Potions class spouting poetry, a man divorced from emotional 
> reactions?  Ha.  Snape is an emotional man with a sense of the dramatic 
> and, I'd wager, no small measure of acting ability (he was a spy, after 
> 

Perhaps G.E.O.R.G.E.'S. S.I.S.T.E.R. D.I.A.N.A. hasn't been clear on this. Of 
course Snape is emotional, he couldn't be angst-ridden if he wasn't. But I 
think that some of his emotional outbursts are prompted by what his intellect 
is telling him. His anger with Harry when he catches him after the illicit 
Hogsmeade trip, and his reactions to Sirius are both prompted not only by his 
antipathy towards them, but by the intellectual conviction that he *knows* 
what is going on. He does work out quite often what harry's up to. He's 
wrong, of course about Sirius, but the dramatic emotional responses stem from 
his frustration at never being able to prove himself right and in the case of 
the handshake of realising, horror of horrors, that he might have been wrong.
Incidentally, for me Snape will now always sweep into that first potions 
lesson, spouting poetry, but unfortunately that only happens in the film. In 
the book, he starts much more prosaically, by taking the register. (I think 
the film does it better. Shh, don't tell anyone!)

Tabouli again:
> What I see in Snape is a man whose emotions and principles are in continual 
> conflict (similar to but not quite the same as what others have said about 
> his natural tendencies towards evil warring with his better moral nature).  
> In the time where the books are set, he seems to have struck an uneasy 
> balance, where he lets his emotions win the little battles, but lets his 
> 
<snip>

Yes, I agree, we do have emotions and principles at war, but that doesn't 
mean that he didn't have the conflict between  two world-views going on 
simultaneously (and Diana's view is also subtly different from the 'tendency 
toward evil' vs 'better moral nature' satndpoint).

> Tabouli:
> Judging by what happens when you dig up events from his past, i.e. strong 
> emotional reactions (to the Prank, to reminders of his Death Eater 
> history), I'd say Snape's current incarnation as man whose principles hold 
> tenuous sway over his emotions when it really counts may be a reasonably 
> recent development.  If he's a principled intellectual now, I'd say he's 
> one made, not born, probably because letting his emotions take the reins 
> led to some serious trouble in his past.  I'd say as teenager, his emotions 
> were king, and it wasn't until he learned some very harsh lessons that he 
> developed the ability to control his emotional tendency towards nastiness 
> 

Yes, it was the discovery that he *had* priciples that prompted his defection.

Tabouli:

> Which is why I maintain my objections to the "Snape's a principled man not a 
> mushball who'd make important decisions centred around his girl" too EWW to 
> be TREWW line.  In my version of LOLLIPOPS, the decision to *join* the 
> Death Eaters was an emotional one... his decision to *leave* them was the 
> 

In my view, his decision to join the DEs was neither emotional, nor 
principled, except insofar as I believe he wouldn't believe in sitting on the 
fence. He joined the  DEs because that is what a man of his upbringing and 
natural disposition would do. Hogwarts had offered him an alternative, but 
that *was* a principled, morality-based alternative and I have argued that 
from his viewpoint, those principles seemed morally bankrupt . To quote 
myself,

What's the point of allying yourself with goodness if evil goes unpunished? 
Is there any difference between the two sides? Perhaps not. In fact this ties 
in with the way Vodemort recruited Quirrel: convincing him there was no such 
thing as good and evil only those with power and those afraid to use it or 
words to that effect.



Tabouli:
> As a child, as an adolescent, revenge seems to be the major motivating force 
> for Snape... he turned up at 11 having learned hundreds of curses, he was 
> bullied by the Marauders and dedicated years to trying to catch them out 
> and get them expelled, leading to the Prank.  Carefully thought out, 
> intellectual decisions?  Actions based around sound moral principles??  
> Hardly.  He was being driven by an emotional agenda, wanting to punish 
> those who wronged him, and I'd wager that was the agenda behind his signing 
> up to work with Voldemort.  After all, his thwarters were on the other 
> side, weren't they?  

Yes, a lot of his actions were emotionally based. But I really don't *want* 
him to have gone to Voldemort out of sheer revenge. To me, this makes him 
weak. I like my men strong but vulnerable! ( Not an argument, but there you 
are.)

Tabouli:
>*Then* we have a touch of George.  At first Snape revels in the torture of 
his foes, >but once the edge has been taken off his vengeful emotions, the 
rational, >intellectual, principled side began to surface.  What exactly is 
he trying to achieve >by torturing Muggles and strangers?  After the initial 
bloodrush, he doesn't really >enjoy it any more, certainly not like those 
vicious Lestranges and that bloodthirsty >Avery.  As for those unspeakable 
Marauders James and Sirius, isn't he doing to >others exactly what they did 
to him?  He hated being victimised by them, but the >person he has become is 
no better.  He is a murderer now, killing people for no >better reason than 
that a madman is telling him to.

In agreement, although I don't know whether I see him revelling in what he 
does. Certainly, I see him knowing what he's getting involved in. A key 
element of the Diana theory is that he really *was* a DE, not just playing 
around at it. I certainly don't see him as a principled idealist espousing 
Voldemort's cause from deep conviction, but I do think that the espousal of a 
cause, the identification with a cause is something attractive to many young 
people.

Tabouli:
>The LOLLIPOPS angle here is that he already had an illustration of someone 
who >wasn't afraid to stand up for her principles... Lily.  As his doubts 
grow, her memory >is a moral compass for him.  She stood up for him when he 
was bullied, and judged >Sirius harshly; now he's the bully, and she would 
judge him just as harshly, in fact >more harshly... he isn't just taunting 
and Pranking, he's actually killing people.  >What has he become?

>This, I would argue, is actually a moral principle issue, *not* a mushy 
issue.  Lily >as role model as much as Lily the lost love.  By her past 
actions, she awakened >the moral conscience slumbering under Snape's 
vengeful, bitter emotions.  The >threat to her family is what suddenly 
triggers Snape's recognition of the immorality >of his actions, because it 
makes it *real*... someone he knows and loves will suffer >for the rest of 
her life because of his actions.  Something he has already done to >countless 
other people.

>The moral crisis, already building, hits a critical mass.  The vengeful 
emotions that >drove Snape to Voldemort seem childish and abominable; his 
actions since then >unspeakably immoral.  Snape's principles rise up to 
conquer his emotions and he >goes to Dumbledore announcing he wants to change 
sides.  Dumbledore is wary of >this young man, whose thirst for revenge 
turned him into a Death-Eater.  Therefore, >Snape must prove to Dumbledore 
that those vengeful emotions are now controlled >and ruled completely by the 
principles that led him to change sides.  What better >way to do this than 
enlist Snape's services as spy?

Yes, now he has a sense of morality. Morality had nothing to do with joining 
the DEs as it seemed irrelevant to him.  But then, I don't think revenge was 
the *motive* either, although I dare say it was an added bonus.

>I say the decision to *leave* Voldemort was definitely based on moral 
principles, >and that this fits in seamlessly with LOLLIPOPS.  Because, of 
course, if Snape >loved Lily, why abandon the Death Eaters when they were 
going to kill her husband >and son and leave her free for him??  Emotions 
would have kept him firmly under >Voldemort's wing.  Only principles could 
send him to Dumbledore to *save* the >Potters and *save* Lily's happiness, 
while simultaneously working against his own >private longing to have Lily 
for himself.

>Which, of course, makes the fact that Lily herself actually ended up dying >
unnecessarily to save Harry about as horrible an outcome for Snape as you 
could >imagine.

>No wonder he hates Harry so much...

Egads, Cap'n, you make a persuasive argument. The Lollipop's grappling irons 
have caught hold of my poor, inadequate little anti-ship (so insignificant, 
it doesn't even have a name. What would you call an anti-Lollipops vessel 
anyway? The 'Sugar-Free Gum' doesn't have quite the same ring to it.) and are 
pulling me inexorably closer. But no, I will fight (trying desperately to 
sever the ropes), putting off the evil day when I have to eat humble pie and 
wondering how long I'll have to scrub the decks and peel the potatoes. 

Eloise   (who's being extremely irritated by a curly haired little girl who 
keeps jumping up and down and singing some inane song about candy in her ear.)

Oh yes, and who also militates against Snape being a vampire, even though she 
did have a bit of a thing for vampires once, a long time ago. Adolescence is 
a strange thing. 
A lot of what is interpreted as vampire evidence could be more general Gothic 
stereotyping (visions of Snape playing sinister organ music in his dungeon). 
I was interested to note that this particular Snapemyth has made it onto 
Gameboy Advance, which has a character saying that Snape never smiles as this 
would show his fangs.


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




From cindysphynx at home.com  Tue Feb 26 13:17:43 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:17:43 -0000
Subject: Some Snape thoughts;Flitwick; More Neville 
In-Reply-To: <77025E69.40DE65D6.6E93A4F5@netscape.net>
Message-ID: <a5g1tn+qfps@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35757

David wrote:

> When Harry got cross with his aunt at the beginning of POA, he 
>broke her glass, then blew her up.  Later, in GOF, when Snape 
>cracks his notorious 'I see no difference' remark, (to demonstrate 
>to any vampires present that he is not toothist), Harry imagines 
>all sorts of horrible things happening to Snape - but they don't.
> 
> I wonder if Snape was using all his magical powers at that time to 
>resist Harry's anger, and is in fact *deliberately* winding him up, 
>so that, in due course, Harry can do something spectacular, with or 
>without his wand, when made sufficiently angry.

Hmmm.  So if I read this correctly, you're suggesting that Snape has 
some sort of power to resist Harry's vague wandless magic, and 
that's the reason Snape didn't blow up like Aunt Marge.  Hmmm, very 
interesting, the idea that Snape has these unusual powers. I wonder 
where he got those powers.   Hmmm.  Is there any creature we know 
that requires a special defense, a creature that can only be 
repelled with a Patronus charm, a creature that glides and prowls 
and inhabits dark spaces and sucks the warmth out of the air?  Nah, 
nothing comes to mind.

Elkins wrote:

>Bearing in mind, of course, that the less we know about people
> the easier it becomes to envy their lot in life, I would still 
> like to cast my vote for Most Enviable Character for little
> Professor Flitwick.
 
<snip list of Flitwick's admirable qualities> 

OK.  Now I think I am starting to get Edge.  I understand Edge 
because Flitwick apparently has no Edge *at all*.  It's all smooth 
round corners with Flitwick, if there are any corners at all.  The 
man is *too* perfect.  Even George and Steady State would be 
powerless to construct a convincing backstory for Flitwick.  There's 
just nothing there.  Are we supposed to envy perfection?  Where's 
the fun in that?  ::heavy sigh::

Eileen wrote (about Reverse Memory Charm):  

> Cindy, you've finally sold me on it. 

Thanks goodness!  The Big Bangers just got a fresh shipment of 
Potted Meat By-products and Saltines, so come on over and set a 
spell.

Eileen again (about the torture of toddler Neville):

> Why would the Lestranges leave Neville out of the picture, Cindy? 
>They 
> tortured Mrs. Longbottom to make Frank talk, why would they leave 
>his 
> little toddler out of the business? Because Florence Lestrange was 
>a 
> kind maternal woman in whom Neville awakened the thought of a lost 
> life as Mrs. Sirius Black barefootedly baking cookies for the 
>hordes 
> of little Blacks? No, I don't think so. 

OK, you're going to *force* me to think about little babies being 
tortured, aren't you?  I have to address this, or I will be heckled 
as "squeamish" and I will lose all credibility (or what smidgen of 
credibility I have left).  So here we go.

Why doesn't Mrs. Lestrange fire up toddler Neville with a Cruciatus 
curse to make his parents talk?  I am tempted to say that the 
parents of toddlers are so used to hearing their shrieks that Frank 
would not be troubled by Neville's tortured screams.  :-) But I 
needn't go there.

You see, the reason Mrs. Lestrange leaves Neville alone during the 
attacks is that she doesn't see him as a risk.  He is too young to 
identify her, she thinks. We want our DEs to be grey, right?  So 
even Evil Mrs. Lestrange isn't about to torture or kill an innocent 
toddler unless there's some good reason.  

But if Reverse Memory Charms actually exist as something other than 
a figment of my overactive imagination, doesn't Mrs. Lestrange 
*have* to kill Neville to protect herself?  Nope.  The reason is 
that Mrs. Lestrange (like Elkins) has never *heard* of a Reverse 
Memory Charm, you see.  Really, how often do wizards need to perform 
a charm like that?  It doesn't come up every day.  So Moody the 
skilled Auror knows about it, and Crouch Sr. the head of magical law 
enforcement knows about it.  Evil-Overlords-In-Training like Mrs. 
Lestrange have never heard of Reverse Memory Charm.  Lucky for 
Neville that Mrs. Lestrange didn't know about the Reverse Memory 
Charm, too, because Mrs. Lestrange isn't grey enough to spare 
Neville if she believed him to be a threat.

Actually, this issue presents problems for the proponents of Memory 
Charm Neville.  If Neville is 4 or so when the torture happens, then 
why *does* Mrs. Lestrange leave him alone?  Are we to believe that 
Mrs. Lestrange is the one who placed a memory charm on Neville?  
Doesn't she, like Wormtail and Voldemort, know that memory charms 
can be broken?  Mrs. Lestrange needs to explain herself on this 
point.

Anyway, Mrs. Lestrange can be forgiven her little slip up in leaving 
Neville alive.  There is nothing at all in the Evil Overlord 
handbook about it, after all.  :-)

Cindy




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Feb 26 13:53:35 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:53:35 -0000
Subject: Some Snape thoughts;Flitwick; More Neville
In-Reply-To: <a5g1tn+qfps@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5g40v+7g99@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35758

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> David wrote:

> > I wonder if Snape was using all his magical powers at that time to 
> >resist Harry's anger, and is in fact *deliberately* winding him up, 
> >so that, in due course, Harry can do something spectacular, with or 
> >without his wand, when made sufficiently angry.
> 
> Hmmm.  So if I read this correctly, you're suggesting that Snape has 
> some sort of power to resist Harry's vague wandless magic, and 
> that's the reason Snape didn't blow up like Aunt Marge.  Hmmm, very 
> interesting, the idea that Snape has these unusual powers. 

I don't think any "unusual powers" are required.  Aunt Marge is a
Muggle.  Snape is a wizard.  That's more than enough to account for
the difference.


> Actually, this issue presents problems for the proponents of Memory 
> Charm Neville.  If Neville is 4 or so when the torture happens, then 
> why *does* Mrs. Lestrange leave him alone?  Are we to believe that 
> Mrs. Lestrange is the one who placed a memory charm on Neville?  
> Doesn't she, like Wormtail and Voldemort, know that memory charms 
> can be broken?  Mrs. Lestrange needs to explain herself on this 
> point.

Ah, but can the Memory Charm be broken *humanely*?  Voldemort
apparently got through the Memory Charm on Bertha by torturing her
until the charm broke.  But surely not even a tough-as-nails Auror
like Moody would try to get a conviction in a criminal case by
torturing the victim's 4-year-old child.  Mrs. Lestrange knew she was
safe.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From tabouli at unite.com.au  Tue Feb 26 14:26:47 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 01:26:47 +1100
Subject: Seeking counsel, Snape: a SHAM BACHELOR?
Message-ID: <006f01c1bed1$b0c928a0$dc29ddcb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35759

About Professor Flitwick, Catlady wrote:

> Yes, but if he were my House master (Flitwick is Master of 
> Ravenclaw and I am a Ravenclaw) I don't think I could bear to go to 
> him with any problem about sex or broken hearts or other students 
> picking on me... This short guy who squeaks in excitement and falls 
> off his desk... 

Now here's a musing for you all... if you were a student at Hogwarts, who would *you* turn to for counsel on your disastrous love life/family problems/career choices/struggles with school bullies/quarrels with friends/struggles with that nasty Potions master?

As far as we can see, there's no school counsellor.  In fact, the person closest to fulfilling this role, for Harry at least, is Dumbledore himself, with extra input from Hermione and Sirius by GoF.  Percy tries to dispense some career counselling, which IIRC Harry disregards.  Ron has some matey tips about women before the Yule Ball (the blind leading the blind, though he was in fact right in thinking Harry would be sought after).

Hmmm.  Perhaps we should look at this issue on a case by case basis.

- To whom does Neville turn with his endless trials and struggles?  Hermione for schoolwork, evidently, but other things?  Would that fearsome grandmother of his dispense comfort and wisdom in his hour of need?  Crouch/Moody appeared to, but of course had darker motivations.

- How about Hermione?  Books, obviously, but do people think she *might* just go to McGonagall?  She did when she was worried about the Firebolt.  It also appears that she may have turned to Ginny about her Krum situation.

- Ron??  I'm sure Percy would have volunteered when he was still at Hogwarts (to Ron's disgust), but I can't see the twins playing counsellor to their little brother.  A suffer and brood in silence type, I'd say, who imagines that by not spelling things out no-one will guess what's bothering him (whereas he's actually as transparent as a newly washed window)

- Heh heh, just had a vision of Lavender and Parvati going to Trelawney for oracular womanly wisdom on their love lives... "Draw near, my children, while I focus my Inner Eye on the ways of the heart..."

Ama:
> Pshht! you all say, Snape has a missus!  Now look
here, would you really be surprised if JKR sprung
something like this on us?!  Tabouli, would you oblige
me with an acronym?<

If she's alive but hidden, legions of Snapefans are going to be devastated that their pin-up is in fact a:

S.H.A.M.B.A.C.H.E.L.O.R. (Snape Has A Missus, But Always Conceals Her Existence - Overly Risky)(Loving wife scenario)

Alternatively, if she's dead, the Snapefans could fantasise about soothing the tears sprung for the feeling he'd been:

S.W.I.N.D.L.E.D. (Snape's Wife Is Now Dead, Loosing Eternal Devastation)(Widower scenario)

Finally, if Snape's wife is a harridan who drove him to Potions, arguably his marriage is having its:

S.W.A.N.S.O.N.G. (Snape's Wife: A Nagging Shrew Or Nasty Gorgon)(Shrew scenario)

Tabouli.


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




From tabouli at unite.com.au  Tue Feb 26 14:40:51 2002
From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 01:40:51 +1100
Subject: Acronym correction, Hermione's counsellor
Message-ID: <00a401c1bed3$c711e460$dc29ddcb@price>

No: HPFGUIDX 35760

S.H.A.M.B.A.C.H.E.L.O.R. 

Oops, lost an L there...let's change it to  Snape Has A Missus, But Always Conceals Her Existence, Lowering Overt Risk.

As for Hermione, seconds after sending that post I remembered that her shoulder of choice for weeping on when Harry and Ron were snubbing her was Hagrid's in PoA.  Interesting, isn't it?  Especially when you consider that Hermione is a swotty intellectual whereas Hagrid is the archetypal oaf with heart of gold.  Does this say something about Hermione?  Or, indeed, JKR (who based Hermione on herself)?

Tabouli.


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




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Feb 26 14:52:37 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:52:37 -0000
Subject: Hermione's counsellor
In-Reply-To: <00a401c1bed3$c711e460$dc29ddcb@price>
Message-ID: <a5g7fl+8bu1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35761

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> wrote:

> As for Hermione, seconds after sending that post I remembered that
her shoulder of choice for weeping on when Harry and Ron were snubbing
her was Hagrid's in PoA.  Interesting, isn't it?  Especially when you
consider that Hermione is a swotty intellectual whereas Hagrid is the
archetypal oaf with heart of gold.  Does this say something about
Hermione?  Or, indeed, JKR (who based Hermione on herself)?
> 

I susptect that with Hermione, it would depend on the nature of the
problem.  If she was looking for sensible advice or useful action,
she'd go to McGonnagal (as she did about Harry's Firebolt).  In cases
where she's looking purely for emotional support, she'd go to Hagrid. 
After all, Ron and Harry snubbing her is not the sort of problem that
could be solved by sensible advice.  All she wanted then was a
shoulder to cry on and somebody to say "There, there, it will be all
right," and Hagrid is much better suited for that than McGonnagal is.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Tue Feb 26 15:24:18 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:24:18 -0000
Subject: Foe Glass
In-Reply-To: <a5f8kk+k34n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5g9b2+cr3s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35762

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jktaylor" <jktaylor at y...> wrote:
> A newbie thought on Snape and the Foe Glass:
> 
> When I first read it, I thought that Snape saw himself in the glass, 
> because he is his own (worst?!?) enemy.  His petulant closed- 
> mindedness has kept him from seeing the truth in the past and may 
> prove to be his downfall in the future.

Oooh, I like that idea!  Not only interesting and full of lovely
irony, but it would also explain Snape's reaction to seeing himself,
assuming he realized what it means.

Overall, I have to admit I'm a little confused about how the Foe Glass
works.  When Crouch/Moody and Harry were in the room alone, how did
the glass know to show Crouch's enemies and not Harry's?  It's not
just a matter of who's looking at it, since Harry himself sees Snape,
Dumbledore and McGonnagal instead of, say, Wormtail and Voldemort (or
Crouch/Moody himself).  By the time Snape looked at it, the room was
full of people, so how did the Glass have *any* idea whose foes it was
supposed to be showing?  Does it have some sort of telepathic ability,
so that it picks up which person in its vicinity is most concerned
about their enemies?

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com  Tue Feb 26 15:51:53 2002
From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:51:53 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Foe Glass
References: <a5g9b2+cr3s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C7BAF19.64877314@kingwoodcable.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35763

marinafrants wrote:

> Overall, I have to admit I'm a little confused about how the Foe Glass
> works.  When Crouch/Moody and Harry were in the room alone, how did
> the glass know to show Crouch's enemies and not Harry's?  It's not
> just a matter of who's looking at it, since Harry himself sees Snape,
> Dumbledore and McGonnagal instead of, say, Wormtail and Voldemort (or
> Crouch/Moody himself).  By the time Snape looked at it, the room was
> full of people, so how did the Glass have *any* idea whose foes it was
> supposed to be showing?  Does it have some sort of telepathic ability,
> so that it picks up which person in its vicinity is most concerned
> about their enemies?


The only thing I can think of it is that the Foe glass shows the enemies
of the owner. I would guess that the glass belonged to Crouch. If it
were to show the enemies of the person who is looking at it, this means
D, McGonagall, and Snape are all enemies of Harry. However...we know
that D, M, and supposedly Snape are on the side of Harry, which would
put them against Crouch.

-Katze



From porphyria at mindspring.com  Tue Feb 26 19:24:24 2002
From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:24:24 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Foe Glass
In-Reply-To: <a5f8kk+k34n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <718167DE-2AEE-11D6-BC04-000393465128@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35764

jktaylor wrote:

> A newbie thought on Snape and the Foe Glass:
>
> When I first read it, I thought that Snape saw himself in the glass,
> because he is his own (worst?!?) enemy.

That's actually is a nice idea, I agree he can be his own worst enemy, 
but I'm afraid the Foe Glass doesn't work that way.

Katze suggested:

> The only thing I can think of it is that the Foe glass shows the enemies
> of the owner. I would guess that the glass belonged to Crouch.

This must be it; I *don't* think it's supposed to work like the Mirror 
of Erised. Several minutes later into this same scene, after Snape has 
returned with the veritaserum and Crouch Jr. has resumed his normal 
physical form, Dumbledore goes to give him the serum and the text reads:

"Dumbledore got up, bent over the man on the floor, and pulled him into 
a sitting position against the wall beneath the Foe-Glass, in which the 
reflections of Dumbledore, Snape, and McGonagall were still glaring down 
upon them all."

"Still glaring." At this point Crouch Jr. has been stunned out cold for 
a while, and there's no indication that the reflections in the glass 
have changed *at all* since they first appeared. Katze must be right in 
that the Foe Glass somehow knows who its owner is. Maybe when you buy a 
Foe Glass, you have to cast some kind of ownership spell on it to let it 
know who you are.

I never assumed that at the point when Snape is noticing his own 
reflection that his is the *only* one visible; he's just looking at his 
in particular.

I still like my own interpretation of this scene better. ;-)

~~Porphyria


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




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Feb 26 17:34:49 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:34:49 -0000
Subject: Fudge is Way Evil and I have the acronyms to prove it
In-Reply-To: <a5dn72+qloo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5ggvp+4a6f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35765

::waves away clouds of pipe smoke, opens a window and lets 
the fresh air in::

Okay, there's a possibility Fudge could be evil. Dumbledore 
seems to be weighing that when he takes his hard look at 
Fudge. But I don't think Dumbledore buys it, because he doesn't 
adopt the needling tone he uses with Lucius Malfoy at the end of 
CoS. Also, if Fudge were a DE, wouldn't he leap at the chance to 
send envoys to the Giants, and agree at once to remove the 
Dementors from Azkaban? I imagine Lucius Malfoy will be 
downright annoyed when he finds out that he's lost a perfectly 
good opportunity to insinuate his own operatives into the Giant 
mission, or insert them into Azkaban. Hmmm, more of 
Dumbledore's Malfoy baiting? 

Also, making Fudge evil guts the meaning from Dumbledore's 
speech at the end of GoF. If Fudge is evil, then whom do we have 
who has chosen what was easy rather than what was right?   
Not Karkaroff or Bagman, who are simply fleeing for their lives. 
That's not a brave choice, but it can't have been  an easy one. 

Pippin
F.U.D.G.E.F.A.C.T.O.R.

> Dicentra replies:
> 
> Yes, yes, you've got an acronym in your support. But I've got 
FIVE!!! 
> 
> I win.

"One man and the truth is a majority"-anonymous :-)
PS This Sunday's New York Times Magazine had a column on 
Acronymania




From cindysphynx at home.com  Tue Feb 26 18:03:31 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 18:03:31 -0000
Subject: Fudge is Way Evil and I have the acronyms to prove it
In-Reply-To: <a5ggvp+4a6f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5gilj+k1l3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35766

Pippin wrote:

> Okay, there's a possibility Fudge could be evil. Dumbledore 
> seems to be weighing that when he takes his hard look at 
> Fudge. But I don't think Dumbledore buys it, because he doesn't 
> adopt the needling tone he uses with Lucius Malfoy at the end of 
> CoS. Also, if Fudge were a DE, wouldn't he leap at the chance to 
> send envoys to the Giants, and agree at once to remove the 
> Dementors from Azkaban? 

Hmmm.  I think Fudge *is* going to send envoys to the Giants.  He's 
just not going to send the envoy Dumbledore would want him to send.  
As for removing the dementors from Azkaban, Fudge has a plan there, 
too.  I suspect there will be a rash of escapes from Azkaban in the 
near future.  

Fudge is actually quite slick.  Rather than remove the Azkaban 
guards, which would create quite a public stir, he will leave them 
in place to do Voldemort's bidding.  The Bad Guys get sprung; the 
Good Guys like Sirius are relieved of their souls.  A politician 
like Fudge would call it a win-win situation.

As for Dumbledore's failure to show disdain toward Fudge, I think 
Dumbledore is being careful to avoid getting tossed out of Hogwarts 
completely.  Dumbledore has already been shown the door once in 
CoS.  Dumbledore will be deferential to Fudge's face, anyway.  

It's not going to work, though.  I'm pretty sure Dumbledore is on 
his way out as Hogwarts Headmaster.  Maybe Flitwick is about to get 
a promotion?

Pippin again:

> Also, making Fudge evil guts the meaning from Dumbledore's 
> speech at the end of GoF. If Fudge is evil, then whom do we have 
> who has chosen what was easy rather than what was right?   

Fudge, Karkaroff and Bagman have chose easy over right (I think).  
I'm looking around for people who have chosen right over easy.  
Snape, maybe.  There aren't too many other names that come to mind.

Cindy




From adhara_black at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Feb 26 17:54:09 2002
From: adhara_black at yahoo.co.uk (adhara_black)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:54:09 -0000
Subject: Fudge is Way Evil and I have the acronyms to prove it
In-Reply-To: <a5ggvp+4a6f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5gi41+ru9a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35767

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> ::waves away clouds of pipe smoke, opens a window and lets 
> the fresh air in::
> 
> Okay, there's a possibility Fudge could be evil. Dumbledore 
> seems to be weighing that when he takes his hard look at 
> Fudge. But I don't think Dumbledore buys it, because he doesn't 
> adopt the needling tone he uses with Lucius Malfoy at the end of 
> CoS. 

Pippin,
I wonder if it is simply a case of 'if you're not with us, you're 
against us' so if Fudge is doing nothing to support Dumbledore and 
accept the facts revealed to him at the end of GoF, it automatically 
makes him an enemy. 
I have supported the idea that Fudge *is* evil, but perhaps he's just 
too scared to face the truth and only interested in saving his own 
skin. I would argue though that this makes him almost as 
dangerous.....
Adhara
(aka Holly - sorry - trouble with my alter ego's email address, never 
mind)





From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Tue Feb 26 18:52:25 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 18:52:25 -0000
Subject: Fudge is Way Evil and I have the acronyms to prove it
In-Reply-To: <a5ggvp+4a6f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5glh9+mfhl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35768

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> ::waves away clouds of pipe smoke, opens a window and lets 
> the fresh air in::
> 
> Okay, there's a possibility Fudge could be evil. Dumbledore 
> seems to be weighing that when he takes his hard look at 
> Fudge. ... Also, if Fudge were a DE...

Dicentra replies:

I don't allege that Fudge is a bona fide DE, dark mark and all.  He's
not a member of the inner circle, but a covert supporter who enables
Voldemort and the DEs and their Evil Doings.

Pippin continues to insist on signing off thus:
> 
> Pippin
> F.U.D.G.E.F.A.C.T.O.R.
> 
> > Dicentra replies:
> > 
> > Yes, yes, you've got an acronym in your support. But I've got 
> FIVE!!! 
> > 
> > I win.

And Pippin retorts:
> 
> "One man and the truth is a majority" -anonymous :-)

So Dicentra parries:

...and one chick and five acronyms *and* the truth is a supermajority.
Ha! :D

Go ahead.  Fight F.I.E if you can.  Fight F.I.R.E. too (Fudge Is
*Really* Evil). But I don't think JKR aroused Dumbledore's suspicions
just to dash them to bits in OoP.  When *he's* fooled (as in the case
of Moody), *we're* fooled (though not necessarily the reverse; he
always knows more than we do).

But if you want to go for a more nuanced Fudge--someone who is
indifferent about Good and Evil and plays both sides against each
other for his own benefit, then THAT would be an interesting theory.

--Dicentra, who would think of an acronym but it's lunch time








From huntleyl at mssm.org  Tue Feb 26 20:04:29 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:04:29 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: AK Stealing Souls
References: <a5f4k1+p0in@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000c01c1bf00$cd013c40$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 35769

VIN SAID:
>     Actually, I have a little seperate idea that perhaps explains 
>why these curses are "Unforgiveable," and it's fairly straightfoward 
>I think. Rather than having some sort of "soul stealing" power 
>behind it, I think AK is just as the canon states- a curse that 
>kills quite quickly and evenly. The reason, IMHO, is more likely 
>these are the only spells that are developed that are SPECIFICALLY 
>and ONLY designed to kill, harm, or limit another person. It's the 
>only use for these spells, they can't do anything else. Other spells 
>can be used to kill, that much is certain. However, they can also be 
>used for other methods. Take for instance the first Quidditch match 
>in SS, Hermione uses a simple spell to summon a fire, with the 
>intention of distracting Snape. Couldn't she just have easily 
>summoned it inside of Snape's Lungs or body, which would surely be 
>lethal? But that's not an Unforgiveable curse! To sum up and 
>finalize it: AK, Imperious, and Cruciatus are Unforgiveable curses 
>because their sole and only use is to harm others. Yes, other spells 
>are harmful if used incorrectly, but also could have other uses. I 
>know most people would immediately think about the explosive spell 
>Pettigrew used to frame Sirius Black- but couldn't that, as corny as 
>it sounds, be used in mining? Or Destroying old Structures? What 
>about in rescue situations? I know these are odd situations, and 
>also fairly uncommon, but it still can be used for other things. 

Yes, I go back and forth between this theory and my own.  Another idea may be that it is "unblockable", that is, if you have the power to use it, you can kill anyone and they don't have a chance -- therefore it is Unforgivable.

However, I think there's got to be something more to it.  As I stated in my first post, if there wasn't some special benefit to using AK, then why would the DE's be so fond of it?  The following is a list of its limitations:

1)  Can only be used on one person at a time.  Obviously, if you are looking to eliminate enemies efficiently, AK makes no sense.  While you're caught up AKing one guy, the other could be blasting you to smithereens.  Furthermore, if all Voldie wanted to do was kill Harry, think of the multitudes of options he had.  There is hardly any reason for him to even enter the house and risk the attack of James and Lily.  Voldie would hardly need a special, unblockable curse to kill a baby.  Even if Harry had special wards on him to prevent being killed by purely magical means (which I doubt he did), Voldie still had lots of options.

2) AK is hard to perform.  Why spent so much energy learning to use AK and then expend the magic needed to perform it when another, easier spell would suffice?

3) It seems you need a direct, unblocked way to the victim.  Again, why go through the trouble of entering the Potter's house if he could have just blown it to a fine powder around them?  Entering gave James and Lily a chance to fight back, gave them warning and the time to offer a defense.  If V just blasted them from the outside, they would have no chance to ward themselves, they wouldn't have seen it coming.  So, V must have had a good reason to use AK.

mmm, on the other hand, it's all in how JK wants it to be...

laura


       


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





From Caeser56 at si.rr.com  Tue Feb 26 22:44:30 2002
From: Caeser56 at si.rr.com (caes56)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:44:30 -0000
Subject: AK Stealing Souls
Message-ID: <a5h34e+7s25@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35770


--------Laura Huntley Said:---------------
Yes, I go back and forth between this theory and my own.  Another 
idea may be that it is "unblockable", that is, if you have the power 
to use it, you can kill anyone and they don't have a chance -- 
therefore it is Unforgivable.

However, I think there's got to be something more to it.  As I 
stated in my first post, if there wasn't some special benefit to 
using AK, then why would the DE's be so fond of it?
------------------------------------------

     While reading your post, Laura, I must agree that you do make 
very valid points- but something you said actually made another idea 
pop into my head regarding the theory I had originally talked about. 
You said two things, actually, and it explains everything I think. 
Or hope, at least:-) Like I said, I believe your theory is well 
thought out and definently has it's points, but here is why I think 
this theory holds up:
      You said, as the canon portrays it, that AK is unblockable. 
Once learned, it is unstoppable. No chance of survivial. Dead. Gone. 
Nada. Bye-Bye to all recipients('cept Harry, of course). Well, you 
also ask why would it be used if there wasn't a special benefit? 
But, at the same time, isn't that a benefit in and of itself? Hear 
me out for a moment- in SS, when Hagrid is in the hut-on-the-rock, 
he responds to Harry. Harry had said that the Dursleys told him his 
parents died in a car crash, and Hagrid responds something like "A 
car crash? Kill Lily and James Potter? Preposterous!"(I think that 
quote, however, is much closer to the movie version, but still, they 
both conveyed the same meaning). At the same time, when Neville was 
eight years old, as he tells it in SS, his Great-Uncle Algie dropped 
in from a window and he bounced all the way into the street, to 
their delight. This was Neville's first display of actual magical 
ability. And once again, in JKR's own interviews, a commonly stated 
fact is that Wizards live to be much longer than humans. From this, 
we can easily see that Wizards are much tougher than muggles, and 
can stand much more physical pain, possibly due to their magical 
natures. When Pettigrew blasts a hole in the middle of the street in 
PoA, Sirius is right next to him- they find in in the center of the 
crater, laughing his head off. So, he can withstand a strong enough 
blast that blows a crater in the middle of the street, kills 
numerous muggles, and he's still standing there, laughing. 
       Here is yet ANOTHER fact: not a single witch or wizard is 
killed in the novels by ANY other spell than AK. Think about it: 
Harry's parents, AK. (or so we assume, it's never stated but it 
appears that way with Priori Incantatum. If he had fireballed them 
to death, the reverse spell should have been a fireball, not their 
bodies.). Cedric- Ak'ed. Barty Crouch- I don't believe it stated any 
spell in specific. Now, from this I discount any killings by 
creature's abilities, I am referring only to spells here. There 
isn't one occurance, in my current state of memory, of any wizard 
death by magic by any spell other than AK. So, if it possible that 
maybe this is also the only spell that CAN kill a wizard? Maybe the 
inherent nature of magic- something mentioned by Dumbledore- 
disallows or prevents magic from killing any other wizard, because 
the magic in that person blocks it- except in the case of these 
three spells?
        I happen to think that this line of questioning is quite 
interesting, and a thanks to you Laura for continuing to discuss it!


-Vin




From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Tue Feb 26 22:50:02 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:50:02 -0000
Subject: Some Snape thoughts;Dursley backstory
In-Reply-To: <a5g1tn+qfps@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5h3eq+4127@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35771

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

> Hmmm.  So if I read this correctly, you're suggesting that Snape 
has 
> some sort of power to resist Harry's vague wandless magic, and 
> that's the reason Snape didn't blow up like Aunt Marge.  Hmmm, very 
> interesting, the idea that Snape has these unusual powers. I wonder 
> where he got those powers.   Hmmm.  Is there any creature we know 
> that requires a special defense, a creature that can only be 
> repelled with a Patronus charm, a creature that glides and prowls 
> and inhabits dark spaces and sucks the warmth out of the air?  Nah, 
> nothing comes to mind.
> 
Well, I did hold back on my theory that Snape's form of vampirism 
consists in feeding on the strong emotions of those around him, for 
fear of winning the Flint prize for the maximum number of 
contradictions in a single post.

On this idea, he needs for the Gryffindors to be cross with him every 
lesson to keep the oil flowing in his hair.

But I don't think Harry's wandless magic is vague.  It's very 
powerful, when it leaks out.  I'll stick to my guns and say that I 
*do* really think that JKR intends to link up the Marge incident and 
Harry's anger to other times at Hogwarts when he gets angry.  But I'm 
partly influenced by my view, based on feel for the structure as much 
as anything, that pretty much anything that happens at Privet Drive 
or with the Dursleys is a significant foreshadowing of something.

While I'm on the topic of the Dursleys, I've always wondered about 
Vernon.  You know that bit when he is fleeing the letters, he gets 
out of the car in the forest, casts around or sniffs the air or 
something, gets back in the car and turns round, and they eventually 
choose that island?  What does he imagine he is doing?  Logically 
(and in the actual event) it's a bit hopeless to try to avoid magic 
just by moving.  The Dursleys are anything but logical, but it's as 
if Vernon has some sense of the 'magicality' of a place, or 
something, and is seeking a dead spot.  As if he has some experience 
of magic of his own.  (It's clear he has no experience of magical 
*society* - he doesn't recognise the wizards in the street for waht 
they are.)  I do wonder if he was down to go to Hogwarts, and 
rejected it (or his parents did), and that's what drew him and 
Petunia to each other.

His ability to say 'Do I look stupid?' when he has egg dangling from 
his lip suggests he could be a seer.  He has no neck, so he could be 
part-Skrewt (Challenge to fanficcers: how did this come about, with 
diagrams, please).  The way he turns purple could be an incipient Sea 
Slug animagus ability, too.  And remember, it's the Smeltings Stick 
that chooses the Dursley, not the other way around. ^_`

David, suffering from too much time stuck in a hotel




From cindysphynx at home.com  Tue Feb 26 23:06:40 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:06:40 -0000
Subject: AK Stealing Souls; James' Life Debt To Snape?
In-Reply-To: <000c01c1bf00$cd013c40$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a5h4e0+anub@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35772

Laura wrote:

<snip list of shortcomings of AK curse

You know, this whole AK things sounds like a bit of a scam to me.  
If AK is unblockable, then DEs are at risk just as innocent victims 
are.  Indeed, I can imagine James hiding behind a door and hitting 
Voldemort with AK in the back when Voldemort enters the house.  So 
why were the DEs becoming so strong way back when if the Good Guys 
could sneak up on them and AK them, too?

I hope Milz won't mind if I borrow (well, OK, steal) her theory 
about AK.  The idea, which is similar to Laura's creative idea, is 
that Voldemort gains power by using AK to kill people.  In PS/SS, we 
are told that Voldemort kept getting stronger.  So killing Harry 
would have meant immortality and invincibility for Voldemort.  

Which suggests that Harry won't die at the end of Book 7, because 
Harry will kill Voldemort and receive all of the powers of all of 
Voldemort's victims and will be immortal and invincible.

Ah, a nice feel-good ending.

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

One more quickie thing.  In PoA, in the Shrieking Shack, Snape 
explodes at Harry thusly:

"Like father, like son, Potter!  I have just saved your neck; you 
should be thanking me on bended knee!  You would have been well 
served if he'd killed you!  You'd have died like your father, too 
arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black."

I hope this isn't a dumb question, but are we all agreed that this 
means that Snape saved James Potter's life and Snape is miffed that 
James never appreciated it?  Does it mean that Snape gave James 
information that Black was a spy, but James disregarded it?  Am I 
reading this wrong or something?

Cindy





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Feb 26 23:22:27 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:22:27 -0000
Subject: AK Stealing Souls; James' Life Debt To Snape?
In-Reply-To: <a5h4e0+anub@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5h5bj+5lm6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35773

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> 
wrote:
> Laura wrote:
> 
> <snip list of shortcomings of AK curse
> 
> You know, this whole AK things sounds like a bit of a scam to 
me.   If AK is unblockable, then DEs are at risk just as innocent 
victims are.  Indeed, I can imagine James hiding behind a door 
and hitting  Voldemort with AK in the back when Voldemort 
enters the house.  So  why were the DEs becoming so strong 
way back when if the Good Guys  could sneak up on them and 
AK them, too?

  Er...good guys don't whack people from behind. That's what got 
Draco turned into a ferret, remember? 

Cindy gets back to *my* favorite subject:
> 
> One more quickie thing.  In PoA, in the Shrieking Shack, Snape 
> explodes at Harry thusly:
> 
> "Like father, like son, Potter!  I have just saved your neck; you 
> should be thanking me on bended knee!  You would have 
been well 
> served if he'd killed you!  You'd have died like your father, too 
> arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black."
> 
> I hope this isn't a dumb question, but are we all agreed that 
this  means that Snape saved James Potter's life and Snape is 
miffed that  James never appreciated it?  Does it mean that 
Snape gave James information that Black was a spy, but James 
disregarded it?  Am I reading this wrong or something?
> 
::slaps forehead::
What do you think I've been saying all along? This is the reason 
Snape so vehemently refuses to consider the idea that Sirius 
wasn't the spy. Because  if he *wasn't * the spy, then it could be 
Snape's bad information that got James killed. See? 

Pippin




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Tue Feb 26 23:23:35 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:23:35 -0000
Subject: Lupin - How to pronounce it?
Message-ID: <a5h5dn+nrsi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35774

I was wondering. How to people prononunce Lupin?

Having a good education in French, I pronounced it that way, the same 
way as an animated cartoon character of the same name :-). Suddenly, 
though, it occurs to me that I'm probably not very representative. 

I dread the thought of a movie with a different pronounciation. I 
already was bullied out of pronouncing "Malfoy" in accordance with its 
French roots. 

Then again, for me Voldemort ends with a hard t.

Eileen




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Tue Feb 26 23:31:27 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 18:31:27 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:AK Stealing Souls
References: <a5h34e+7s25@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001201c1bf1d$b68aefc0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 35775

VIN SAID:
<snip, snip>
>Now, from this I discount any killings by 
>creature's abilities, I am referring only to spells here. There 
>isn't one occurance, in my current state of memory, of any wizard 
>death by magic by any spell other than AK. So, if it possible that 
>maybe this is also the only spell that CAN kill a wizard? Maybe the 
>inherent nature of magic- something mentioned by Dumbledore- 
>disallows or prevents magic from killing any other wizard, because 
>the magic in that person blocks it- except in the case of these 
>three spells?

But when Peter used the blasting spell on the street to fake his death, people *did* assume that Sirius hade killed him.  In fact, they believed that the biggest piece left was his finger.  Therefore, it must be possible to kill other wizards with the use of a spell other than AK, otherwise no one would have believed that Sirius had killed Peter.  I assume that the reason Sirius survived was that Peter was sure to shield him from the spell, since if Sirius was dead - well, the framing wouldn't have worked quite so well...

Another thing that points toward there being other ways to kill using magic other than AK is the whole concept of dueling and "seconds".  Ron says in SS that seconds were there in case the dueler died.  Now, what's the fun of dueling with AK? Totally pointless, what's the use of having a formal duel at all? Also, its illegal.  Yet dueling is not illegal, and people still sometimes die in them.  Therefore, duelers must use other spells to wound, and perhaps kill, each other.

Not that your idea doesn't have its merits.  I think wizards probably do have a certain measure of resiliency to physical, as well as magical, attacks -- when compared to the average muggle, that is.

laura 


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




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Tue Feb 26 23:48:08 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 18:48:08 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: AK Stealing Souls; James' Life Debt To Snape?
References: <a5h4e0+anub@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002001c1bf20$0b294fc0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 35776

CINDY SAID:
>You know, this whole AK things sounds like a bit of a scam to me.  
>If AK is unblockable, then DEs are at risk just as innocent victims 
>are.  Indeed, I can imagine James hiding behind a door and hitting 
>Voldemort with AK in the back when Voldemort enters the house.  So 
>why were the DEs becoming so strong way back when if the Good Guys 
>could sneak up on them and AK them, too?

Well, under my theory...AK is REALLY, ***REALLY*** wrong.  Has anyone ever read the Secret Texts trilogy by Holly Lisle?  What I mean is something similar to what the Mirror of Souls does -- takes the soul/essence/spirit/whatever-you-want-to-call-it and convert it to raw power for the taker.  A decent person just doesn't do that.  It's not just killing someone, it's making them NOT BE at all.  Very very wrong. Bad. **slaps wrist** 


Cindy says some more:
<snipity snip snip>
>Which suggests that Harry won't die at the end of Book 7, because 
>Harry will kill Voldemort and receive all of the powers of all of 
>Voldemort's victims and will be immortal and invincible.

*sigh* if only...

And Cindy again:
>One more quickie thing.  In PoA, in the Shrieking Shack, Snape 
>explodes at Harry thusly:
>"Like father, like son, Potter!  I have just saved your neck; you 
>should be thanking me on bended knee!  You would have been well 
>served if he'd killed you!  You'd have died like your father, too 
>arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black."
>I hope this isn't a dumb question, but are we all agreed that this 
>means that Snape saved James Potter's life and Snape is miffed that 
>James never appreciated it?  Does it mean that Snape gave James 
>information that Black was a spy, but James disregarded it?  Am I 
>reading this wrong or something?

I seriously never considered this at all.  I always just assumed Snape believed that Sirius had betrayed the Potters, and always felt that James should have known better, since he's felt that Sirius is a cold blooded would-be murderer since the Prank.


However, Pippin said:
>What do you think I've been saying all along? This is the reason 
>Snape so vehemently refuses to consider the idea that Sirius 
>wasn't the spy. Because  if he *wasn't * the spy, then it could be 
>Snape's bad information that got James killed. See? 

Yeah, I actually really like this idea.  It fits in to the events in PoA like a puzzle piece.  However, canon does say that James switched secret keepers because Sirius said to, not Snape...

However...Snape wouldn't have known about this..He would have assumed that if James switched secret keeper it would have been because of *him*.  Hmmmmm...

laura




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




From westmerd at health.qld.gov.au  Tue Feb 26 23:26:06 2002
From: westmerd at health.qld.gov.au (Debbie Westmerland)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:26:06 +1000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin - How to pronounce it?
Message-ID: <sc7ca634.079@HEALTH-ES2.HEALTH.QLD.GOV.AU>

No: HPFGUIDX 35777

I pronounce it like loop-in *shrugs* probably completely wrong but once you start saying it like that it hard to change.

Debbie

>>> "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at yahoo.ca> 02/27/02 09:23am >>>
I was wondering. How to people prononunce Lupin?

Having a good education in French, I pronounced it that way, the same 
way as an animated cartoon character of the same name :-). Suddenly, 
though, it occurs to me that I'm probably not very representative. 

I dread the thought of a movie with a different pronounciation. I 
already was bullied out of pronouncing "Malfoy" in accordance with its 
French roots. 

Then again, for me Voldemort ends with a hard t.

Eileen








From nancyr at esatclear.ie  Wed Feb 27 07:27:42 2002
From: nancyr at esatclear.ie (RYANS)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:27:42 -0800
Subject: A Wand Of My Very Own
Message-ID: <003d01c1bf60$43043780$328491c2@nancyr>

No: HPFGUIDX 35778

If each wand is suited particularly for its user, how come Crouch 
Jr. could use Harry's wand and Ron could use Percy's wand? Maybe it's just so it will be extra powerful for its user but anyone could 
use it? Any thoughts?

lazyscientist.



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





From huntleyl at mssm.org  Wed Feb 27 00:14:31 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:14:31 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] A Wand Of My Very Own
References: <003d01c1bf60$43043780$328491c2@nancyr>
Message-ID: <002f01c1bf23$ba725460$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 35779

lazyscientist. said:
>If each wand is suited particularly for its user, how come Crouch 
>Jr. could use Harry's wand and Ron could use Percy's wand? Maybe it's just so it will be extra powerful for >its user but anyone could 
use it? Any thoughts?

*Somewhere* in SS/PS, *someone* is talking about how each wizard's wand is suited to its owner and then goes on to say something to the effect of "of course, you'll never get such good results with another wizard's wand..."  Which implies that you don't *have* to use a wand suited to you, but it helps quite a bit.  Perhaps this is why Ron has such trouble in school before he gets a new one (his feather won't fly, etc.).  Also, in some ways (and I could be *incredibly* off on this one) Ron and his brothers seem quite a bit alike (all in Gryffindor, etc.).  Of course, I don't mean their personalities, per se, but something harder to explain.. *sigh*  I'm too lazy to try to get what I'm thinking into words..anyway, my point is, perhaps the wand Ron had to begin with (wasn't it Charlie's? can't remember) was at least *semi*-suited to him.  I mean, the old one and the new one (which I assume he got first-hand) did both have unicorn-hair cores.  I can't remember if they were the same kind of wood or not...darn memory.

laura (who firmly believes that her brain is slowly turning to mush and leaking out through her ears while she sleeps) 



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




From cindysphynx at home.com  Wed Feb 27 00:53:37 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:53:37 -0000
Subject: ADMIN:  Waiting For Book 5
Message-ID: <a5hamh+ihug@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35780

Now for your reading enjoyment, a special Administrative message 
from Hexquarters:

::rustle, rustle::

We know you are all waiting, trembling with excitement, barely able 
to accomplish anything useful, just *dying* to know when Book 5 will 
be released.  Excitement is in the air.  Palms are sweating.  Hearts 
are pounding.  We know it.  We're human; we feel it too!  

Nevertheless, we would like to announce new rules regarding the 
proper places for predictions of release dates, rumors of release 
dates, and prayers about release dates:

HP-Announcements is the place for confirmed information about the 
OoP release date.  This includes messages with a link to a *real* 
news report from a reputable and verifiable source, not just rumor 
and speculation.  The Announcements list is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPfGU-Announcements/
 
OT-Chatter is the place for OoP handwringing, hand-holding, wild-
eyed speculation, wishful thinking, insider information, 12-step 
programs and the like.  The OT-Chatter list is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/
 
Discussion of release dates for OoP does *not* belong on this list, 
however.  This list is for discussion of the Harry Potter 
books.  This list is not for discussion of, er, Harry Potter non-
books.  
 
That's it.  Now keep those fingers crossed that the you-know-what 
will be released you-know-when.
 
Cindy
--The Magical Moderators




From huntleyl at mssm.org  Wed Feb 27 01:12:56 2002
From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:12:56 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Reproduction Habits of Wizards
References: <a5hamh+ihug@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003801c1bf2b$e3986980$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>

No: HPFGUIDX 35781

^_~ Alright.  Perhaps this post isn't, well...all the subject line may have led you to believe.  Just a quick question, actually..

Why, if wizarding folk live longer (and therefore take a correspondingly longer time to hit menopause), are there less wizards than Muggles inhabiting the world??

Combined with the fact that they are better adapted to survival and keeping themselves healthy, etc. -- *and* considering many of them still uphold medieval values (I.e. make lots and lots of kiddies..lookit the Weasleys), one would think the world ought to be over run with them.

Very odd.  Very odd, indeed.

laura (stroking her chin thoughtfully)


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




From plumeski at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 27 00:18:44 2002
From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:18:44 -0000
Subject: Lupin - How to pronounce it?
In-Reply-To: <a5h5dn+nrsi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5h8l4+3012@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35782

"lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> I was wondering. How to people prononunce Lupin?
> 
> Having a good education in French, I pronounced it that way, the 
same 
> way as an animated cartoon character of the same name :-). 

I don't know the character to which you're referring, so I can't 
imagine how you *are* pronouncing it. However, I assume, from your 
introduction of French into the equation, that you may be wrong.

The only French literary antecedent for "Lupin" I know is Ars?ne 
Lupin, Gentleman Burglar (have they made animated films about his 
exploits?), pronounced to rhyme with the French for rabbit, "lapin", 
which is not the way I'd pronounce Remus's name (Ars?ne being a 
French character, Remus being an English  - well, maybe not English, 
but British - one).

In English, there's the plant which is pronounced Loo-pin, and I've 
always assumed JKR's intention is for Remus's surname to be 
pronounced the same way.

> Then again, for me Voldemort ends with a hard t.

Me too. In that case, I'm at a loss to understand why Malfoy should 
continue to follow French pronunciation... ;-)

-- 
GulPlum aka Richard





From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 27 02:14:03 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 02:14:03 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Reproduction Habits of Wizards
Message-ID: <F232CWKl1A7xYtSCnl200009612@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35783

>From: "Laura Huntley" <huntleyl at mssm.org>
>Why, if wizarding folk live longer (and therefore take a correspondingly 
>longer time to hit menopause), are there less wizards than Muggles 
>inhabiting the world??
>Combined with the fact that they are better adapted to survival and keeping 
>themselves healthy, etc. -- *and* considering many of them still uphold 
>medieval values (I.e. make lots and lots of kiddies..lookit the Weasleys), 
>one would think the world ought to be over run with them.

Actually, look at the Weasleys as an exception that makes a rule. Draco has 
no siblings we've heard about. Nor does Neville, though perhaps he might 
have, had his parents not been Crucioed into St. Mungos. Only one Chang, one 
Parkinson, one Nott...look at Harry's fellow students. Very few have 
siblings. The Creevy brothers, the Patil sisters, erm, I think that's it, 
other than the Weasleys.

My thought is that, by virtue of their magical natures and their longevity, 
wizard folk breed slowly as a rule, which might be part of why the Malfoy 
family sneers so heavily in their direction: it could well be that they'd be 
sneered at if they were as rich as Croesus, simly because they're so very 
fertile.

J

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




From saintbacchus at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 27 02:31:33 2002
From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 02:31:33 -0000
Subject: Problems with potions & Mrs. Snape
Message-ID: <a5hge5+4lp5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35784

--- "brewpub44" <brewpub44 at e... wrote:
 
<<
So I think Snape wants those unable to grasp potions to
drop out (is that an option by GoF? I don't remember),
because it's better to not do potions at all than do
them badly.
>>
 
Perhaps, and he could be right. At the same time, it's
not very helpful to badger the students who are slow when
they're doing such dangerous things. Besides, what
becomes of students who drop out? Do they run around
half-educated like Hagrid? That's pretty dangerous, too.


 --- ladjables <ladjables at y... wrote:
<<
Don'tquitehaveatheoryyet, but before "Mrs. Snape" is
rejected as an entirely implausible and ridiculous
notion, and consigned to the trashheap of discarded
ideas, answer me this: is there any evidence in the
canon that Snape is NOT married?
>>

At first, I could not wrap my head around this idea. It
just felt wrong. But then "Crying" popped up in Winamp
and I was inspired. "What would David Lynch do?" I asked
myself.
 
Give him an estranged wife, of course. David Lynch is a
bastard that way. And the more I thought about that, the
more right it seemed. If Snape has got any kind of wife,
she's estranged. The theory goes a little something like
this:
 
Snape became a Death Eater shortly after (or before)
graduating. That means he either had a DE wife or he
selfishly married a woman who was unaware of his, uh,
activities. I see Snape as a little too much of a loner
to enjoy doubles murder & mayhem, so the DE wife is out.
That leaves a nice, soul-soothing woman, much like you
described, to be gradually disillusioned. Maybe she has
an affair. Maybe she realizes that something about him is
too broken to be fixed by her love (obviously she hasn't
heard of fan fiction). Either way, they grow apart.
 
Thus, even when Snape finally renounces his evil ways,
she's not really there for him. By turning good again,
he's built a rickety rope bride across the chasm between
them, but she has to decide if she wants to rebuild their
bond. Snape must also decide if their love can overcome
their differences.
 
What do you think, sirs?
 
--Anna, feeling very dramatic tonight





From margdean at erols.com  Wed Feb 27 03:33:10 2002
From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:33:10 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin - How to pronounce it?
References: <sc7ca634.079@HEALTH-ES2.HEALTH.QLD.GOV.AU>
Message-ID: <3C7C5376.F31C8789@erols.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35785

Debbie Westmerland wrote:
> 
> I pronounce it like loop-in *shrugs* probably completely wrong but
> once you start saying it like that it hard to change.

Actually I think that must be right (with the accent on the first
syllable):  Otherwise, Peeves' chant of "Loony, loopy Lupin!"
doesn't really work.


--Margaret Dean
  <margdean at erols.com>



From jferer at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 27 03:14:15 2002
From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 03:14:15 -0000
Subject: AK Stealing Souls
In-Reply-To: <a5f4k1+p0in@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5hiu7+evf9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35786

Vin:"Unforgiveable curses because their sole and only use is to harm 
others. Yes, other spells are harmful if used incorrectly, but also 
could have other uses. I know most people would immediately think 
about the explosive spell Pettigrew used to frame Sirius Black- but 
couldn't that, as corny as it sounds, be used in mining? Or Destroying 
old Structures? [Or]...."

That's a simpler explanation, so it's probably the true one. The only 
objection to it is it doesn't explain how the echoes spewed out of the 
wands by Priori Incantatem seem to have so much of the dead person's 
essence. Maybe "echoes" are that detailed.

Vin:"So, taking this into  consideration, could spells be used in 
different grades, such that the explosive spell really isn't an 
unforgiveable curse because it's not really it's own spell?"

I've always believed that all magic depends on the talent, skill, and 
experience of the caster. I'm sure, for example, that Dumbledore can 
Stun harder, vanish better, and Apparate farther than anybody else. 
After all, Harry's a Level Four wizard, and Dumbledore's Level 
Zillion.




From srae1971 at iglou.com  Wed Feb 27 03:19:35 2002
From: srae1971 at iglou.com (Shannon)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:19:35 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin - How to pronounce it?
In-Reply-To: <a5h5dn+nrsi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020226221935.00ab2d50@pop.iglou.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35787

At 11:23 PM 2/26/2002 -0000, Eileen wrote:
>I was wondering. How to people prononunce Lupin?

I always pronounced it "LOO-pin."  I expect Rowling derived the name from
the Latin "Canis Lupus," so the pronounciation would follow that term.

SHannon




From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Wed Feb 27 03:44:38 2002
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (davehoz)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 03:44:38 -0000
Subject: Problems with potions & Mrs. Snape
In-Reply-To: <a5hge5+4lp5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5hkn6+ohoq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35788

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "saintbacchus" <saintbacchus at y...> wrote:
> --- "brewpub44" <brewpub44 at e... wrote:
> Give him an estranged wife, of course. David Lynch is a
> bastard that way. And the more I thought about that, the
> more right it seemed. If Snape has got any kind of wife,
> she's estranged. The theory goes a little something like
> this...

I can't help going to _The Browning Version_ model and
speculate that Snape was a henpecked husband whose wife kept
nagging him because he was not as far up the hierarchy of
power in Voldemort's little club as she wanted.  Maybe she 
even left him in the end & married a more ambitious bloke
named Lestrange...

--
Dave  (Who wishes Jean Kent could play Mrs. Lestrange)






From ganvira at earthlink.net  Wed Feb 27 03:06:48 2002
From: ganvira at earthlink.net (Terry van Ettinger)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:06:48 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin - How to pronounce it?
References: <sc7ca634.079@HEALTH-ES2.HEALTH.QLD.GOV.AU>
Message-ID: <017401c1bf3b$cc277c40$0797cd18@charterpipeline.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35789

Jim Dale in his version of the books pronounces it Debbie's way as well.  It
also seems to fit better with Peeves's taunt, IMO.  I have a hard time
picturing a French pronounciation in that little jibe.  If I pronounce it as
I think it would be in French, the stress gets away from the LU and more on
PIN, which would give "LOOpy LOOpy luPIN,", and that doesn't work for me
rhythmically.

Terry, who hopes this has enough substance.


> I pronounce it like loop-in *shrugs* probably completely wrong but once
you start saying it like that it hard to change.
>
> Debbie
>
> >>> "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at yahoo.ca> 02/27/02 09:23am >>>
<snip>
> Having a good education in French, I pronounced it that way, the same
> way as an animated cartoon character of the same name :-). Suddenly,
> though, it occurs to me that I'm probably not very representative.






From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 27 05:31:02 2002
From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 05:31:02 -0000
Subject: Time, what to call a Potter fan
In-Reply-To: <8368576569.20020225121637@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a5hqum+p5rm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35790

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Dave Hardenbrook <DaveH47 at m...> wrote:

> My personal theory (stated briefly) is that the Wizarding World
> somehow avoided all the old anomalies that were solved (and all the
> new ones that were created) by the Muggles' transitions to the
> Julian and then to the Gregorian Calander.  No doubt someday some
> brilliant Potterologist will come up with a "Wizard Calander" that
> irons out all the discrepancies.

And my personal viewpoint is that time in the Harry Potter books is 
a lot like the rooms and layout of Hogwarts. Days and dates just 
don't seem to stay put very well. Practically speaking, that kind of 
utter chaos (a week could just have two Mondays in it, you never 
know) would make like almost impossible. No one would be sure when 
to show up for classes, for example, so I'm not proposing a theory 
here. I'm just using book language to describe an observed 
phenomenon of the stories.

My other personal viewpoint is that I want henceforth to be known as 
a Potterologist. That is just so cool. The study of Harry Potter is 
now Potterology. Oh yeah, this is good. I'm getting business card 
printed, right now. 

Steve Vander Ark, PhP (Doctor of Potterology)
The Harry Potter Lexicon
http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon




From gautam_ghosh at satyam.com  Wed Feb 27 04:34:29 2002
From: gautam_ghosh at satyam.com (Gautam_Ghosh)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:04:29 +0530
Subject: Other Wizarding Schools in future books
Message-ID: <D85ECB9722B6D311BFFB00805FC1BC3701212F88@hma.satyam.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35791

Hi all,

I am a newbie from India and tentatively writing my first mail to this
group.

I have been following the mails [in the digest form] over the last few days,
and have enjoyed thoroughly the character focus of members...Snapexperts ?

I would like to ask your opinion as to how do you think the other wizarding
schools will affect the overall story in the forthcoming books?

Agreed that Dumbledore is the most respected and wise wizard in the Magical
world, somewhere I foresee when Voldie and his reluctant group of DEs begin
to threaten the whole's world's peace Dumbledore will need to involve the
heads of the other wizarding schools to "teach" the Dark guys a lesson...[at
last, a place where "Those who can, do and those who can't... teach" quote
by GB Shaw doesn't hold true...:-)] ...

Any thoughts?

Regards,
Gautam


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

This email (including any attachments) is intended for the sole use of the
intended recipient/s and may contain material that is CONFIDENTIAL AND
PRIVATE COMPANY INFORMATION. Any review or reliance by others or copying or
distribution or forwarding of any or all of the contents in this message is
STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
the sender by email and delete all copies; your cooperation in this regard
is appreciated.
****************************************************************************




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Wed Feb 27 06:45:45 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 06:45:45 -0000
Subject: Foe Glass
In-Reply-To: <a5g9b2+cr3s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5hvap+j3nu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35792

jktaylor wrote:
> > ...I thought that Snape saw himself in the glass, 
> > because he is his own (worst?!?) enemy.  His petulant closed- 
> > mindedness has kept him from seeing the truth in the past and may 
> > prove to be his downfall in the future.

I like the idea that Snape is his own worst enemy (although I don't 
think that's why he saw himself in the foe-glass.)  However, I see 
Snape's being has own worst enemy more in terms of being too hard on 
himself.  (Sigh, my poor tortured Snape.)

Then Marinafrants asked: 
> Overall, I have to admit I'm a little confused about how the Foe 
> Glass works...   By the time Snape looked at it, the room was
> full of people, so how did the Glass have *any* idea whose foes it 
> was supposed to be showing? 

My theory is, the Foe Glass has to be "set" with a spell that selects 
whose foes to show.  So, when Crouch Jr. kidnapped Real!Moody, Crouch 
Jr. changed the settings on the Foe glass to show his foes, not 
Moody's.  (Presumably, Crouch himself was Moody's biggest foe at the 
moment.)  After all, Real!Moody is there in the room w/Crouch Jr. the 
whole time, so why else wouldn't the Foe Glass show Real!Moody's foes?

This still leaves the question of why Snape sees himself in the Foe 
Glass, and presumably not Dumbledore and McGonagal.  Perhaps, when 
Crouch Jr. was stunned, Dumbledore and McGonagall's thoughts turned to 
other things, like "Who is this guy and why does he look like Moody?" 
 Since they had no desire for further attacks on Crouch Jr., the glass 
didn't pick them up as foes.  Perhaps Snape, being in his usual mood, 
was supressing an urge to beat the &%*$#^% out of Fake!Moody and 
therefore still showed up as a foe.

Judy, who is supposed to be frantically memorizing ancient religious 
texts right no




From judyshapiro at earthlink.net  Wed Feb 27 07:29:43 2002
From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 07:29:43 -0000
Subject: James' Life Debt To Snape?
In-Reply-To: <002001c1bf20$0b294fc0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a5i1t7+j4s5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35793

> And Cindy said:
> >In PoA, in the Shrieking Shack, Snape explodes at Harry thusly:
> >"Like father, like son, Potter!  I have just saved your neck; you 
> >should be thanking me on bended knee!  You would have been well 
> >served if he'd killed you!  You'd have died like your father, too 
> >arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black."
> >I hope this isn't a dumb question, but are we all agreed that this 
> >means that Snape saved James Potter's life and Snape is miffed that 
> >James never appreciated it?  Does it mean that Snape gave James 
> >information that Black was a spy, but James disregarded it?  Am I 
> >reading this wrong or something?

To which Laura replied: 
> I seriously never considered this at all.  I always just assumed 
> Snape believed that Sirius had betrayed the Potters, and always felt 
> that James should have known better, since he's felt that Sirius is 
> a cold blooded would-be murderer since the Prank.

Well, we have two possibilities so far:

1) Snape told James "Sirius is a spy for Voldemort." James ignored 
him and died. 
2) Snape told everyone "Sirius is an evil git who tries to feed 
classmates to werewolves." James ignored him and died. 

I'd say there's a third possibility -- Snape told James "Voldemort is 
after you" and James listens to him, but then picks Sirius as Secret 
Keeper (Even though Snape told everyone "Sirius is an evil git who 
tries to feed classmates to werewolves.")  This is the version I 
favor.  In other words, I think Snape was the spy who revealed that 
Voldy was after the Potters, but he didn't give any information about 
who might be spying for Voldy. 

Of course, Snape would never refer to Sirius as "Sirius".  We know 
Snape is only on a first-name basis with Igor. 

Judy, who got all overexcited about the Foe Glass thing, and posted 
before reading everyone else's posts, and is now embarassed. 





From catlady at wicca.net  Wed Feb 27 07:48:21 2002
From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 07:48:21 -0000
Subject: Pet Rat / Wizarding Procreation / The Other Schools
Message-ID: <a5i305+psnn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35794

Kitty Felini wrote:

> I think that Pettigrew probably crept off to Diagon Alley after
> the big blow up and allowed himself to be found and then sold as a 
> pet rat. (snip) he would be sold cheap. Sounds like a good 
> candidate to be a Weasley pet to me!

Doesn't anyone remember the famous phrase "He followed me home. Can I 
keep him?" To me, it seems ridiculous that people as poor as the 
Weasleys would pay money to buy a pet, when I've never paid money to 
get any of my cats (well, except for a 'donation' to an animal 
shelter that trapped me by displaying adoptable, I mean adorable,  
kittens in bank lobbies). I suppose 'Scabbers' turned up at the 
Burrow, at Arthur's office at the Ministry, at Percy's primary school 
(he was Percy's rat before he was Ron's), someplace, and looked cute 
so that a soft Weasley heart took him home.

Laura wrote:

> Why, if wizarding folk live longer (and therefore take a
> correspondingly longer time to hit menopause), are there less 
> wizards than Muggles inhabiting the world?? Combined with the fact 
> that they are better adapted to survival and keeping themselves 
> healthy, etc. -- *and* considering many of them still uphold 
> medieval values (I.e. make lots and lots of kiddies..lookit the 
> Weasleys), one would think the world ought to be over run with
> them.

As Jake Storm said, the Weasleys are the only wizarding folk we've 
seen with lots and lots of kids. Most seem to have small families 
(Cedric, for example, seems to be an only child). I imagine that 
wizarding folk have assimilated a tradition of having few children 
because THEY've had effective contraception (by magic) so much longer 
than Muggles have had. 

Gautam wrote:

> Dumbledore will need to involve the heads of the other wizarding 
> schools to "teach" the Dark guys a lesson...

On one hand, JKR foreshadowed the involvement of the other wizarding 
schools by having Dumbledore announce, at the end of GoF, that 
everyone who was there was welcome to return. On another hand, it 
seems to be me that most readers expect Karkaroff to be dead fairly 
soon, and thus not to return to Hogwarts (?maybe as a ghost?) and the 
new head of Durmstrang to be someone to whom that invitation was not 
given.




From lennyb2002 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 27 06:53:15 2002
From: lennyb2002 at yahoo.com (lennyb2002)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 06:53:15 -0000
Subject: Harry's home in Godric's Hollow
Message-ID: <a5hvor+uc2q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35795

The consensus about Potter's home in Godric's Hollow is that it has 
been ruined, completely collapsed, destroyed, devastated, leveled and 
such and such. 
      Early in SS, there are two different accounts of that house: 
Petunia won't leave Harry home alone, she says "..Come back and find 
the house in ruins?" Harry replies, "I won't blow up the house." It 
seems that refers to the Godric's Hollow house. In the first chapter, 
Hagrid appears on Privet and tells Dumbledore the Potter's home "was 
almost destroyed...". For Hagrid to say the house was "almost 
destroyed" doesn't paint the catastrophic picture of the roof falling 
in and the house falling down. 
        So, is there someplace where it says that the house 
completely collapsed in the battle with LV? If so, is Hagrid telling 
Dumbledore the house was "almost destroyed" an error? (Not trying to 
speculate on Hagrid. The accounts and timelines of that night and the 
next day(s?) are not very consistent, and the account of the house 
seems the same.)    

"lennyb2002"





From Caeser56 at si.rr.com  Wed Feb 27 09:25:38 2002
From: Caeser56 at si.rr.com (caes56)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:25:38 -0000
Subject: Hagrid's Letter, Re: Weasley's Pets
Message-ID: <a5i8mi+eo1q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35796

First, I would like to start off with a slight retort about 
something Catlady wrote:

----------Catlady Wrote:------------------
Doesn't anyone remember the famous phrase "He followed me home. Can 
I 
keep him?" To me, it seems ridiculous that people as poor as the 
Weasleys would pay money to buy a pet, when I've never paid money to 
get any of my cats (well, except for a 'donation' to an animal 
shelter that trapped me by displaying adoptable, I mean adorable,  
kittens in bank lobbies). I suppose 'Scabbers' turned up at the 
Burrow, at Arthur's office at the Ministry, at Percy's primary 
school 
(he was Percy's rat before he was Ron's), someplace, and looked cute 
so that a soft Weasley heart took him home.
------------------------------------------------

     Actually, as I am currently in the state of re-reading the 
Harry Potter Series for the fourth time straight-(this time it's the 
UK versions I just finally had imported)- I started in November, 
after being convinced of how good it was in the movie. Anyways, when 
Ron is on the train to Hogwarts, he tells Harry that "Dad bought 
Percy an owl because he was made a Prefect. They couldn't aff..i 
mean, I just got Scabbers instead." - this isn't an exact quote, but 
should be fairly close to the canon. It also states the unfortunate 
rebuttle to your statement- it isn't ridiculous that the Weasleys 
can buy pets, as a matter of fact, they buy a lot of things
(including Ron's second wand, his dress clothes, all the books for 
all the kids, etc). It's just that they try to get things second-
hand or cheaper than they normally could. This does NOT, however, 
rebute the theory that Pettigrew could have shown up at their 
doorstep one morning as well! Although, it must be pointed out that 
this could be considered unlikely. Probably a similar scenario to 
dogs and cats- you'd be afraid to take one home for fear of disease. 
I am sure for animals like dogs, cats, and to wizards, something as 
useful as an owl, you'd probably take it to the wizard vet.For a 
rat, however, I just don't see it likely. But that's my opinion, I 
could be wrong.

****************New Topic*****************
     Onto the second topic, this is something that irked me since i 
first read the books. In the SS, during the first week of classes, 
Hagrid invites Harry to his house for tea to discuss the first week 
of classes. In the letter, it says "Harry....I would like to know if 
you'd like to have a cup of tea with me..." This is, of course, 
quite normal. However, it continues to say "....Please send us a 
reply....with Hedwig..." What I don't quite get is the "US". Maybe 
I'm reading a bit too far into it, but that passage always struck me 
as odd. Of course, there are a few explanations that could be given 
that I myself have thought of- namely that he could have been 
refferring to himself and Fangs, or himself and Hedwig. I don't, 
however, think those really fit in.
     Another thought I had occured to me after reading a JKR 
interview. She stated something to the effect that we've met the 
ravenclaw ghost- The Grey Lady- in book 1 but we didn't know it yet. 
Could this be it? I've tried to find the interview, but the search 
engine provided to me by the Elves didn't turn up anything, and 
since it's 4:30 am here on the east coast and i have to wake up in 4 
hours(one of these days, I'll get onto a normal sleeping pattern. 
But not 'till I leave college!) I really can't spend too much more 
time looking. I've also tried looking through the archives for 
related passages but nothing turned up on Hagrid's letter at all. 
Has anybody else even noticed this and mentioned anything, or did 
everybody else also assume it was an error? I mean, it should have 
read both in the plural or singular form. Well, I'm happy to hear 
any replies- I'm really intrigued and annoyed all at the same time 
by this subject! Have a good day/morning/evening/afternoon/night, 
wherever and whenever you read this!


-Vin




From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 27 10:52:34 2002
From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 02:52:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: HP and Akazukin Chacha
Message-ID: <20020227105234.26381.qmail@web21110.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35797

(A little OT, but people here DO discuss HP
parallelisms, don't they? (Dark is Rising, LOTR...?))

Akazukin Chacha fans may find this interesting:
There's this site I came across that compares ACC and
HP. The person came up with pretty good (and, well,
obvious) comparisons and parallelisms.

The site:
http://www.qaimlyn.com/padfootmk/crossovers2.htm

(This site could belong to one of you...)

But of course, if one thinks long enough, virtually
any series or story becomes similar / parallel to HP.
I think.

(clip)
For starters, both series have very young protagonists
who attend a magical school. In HP, it's Hogwarts,
which is a big arcane castle-like place hidden in the
middle of nowhere. In ACC, it's the Urara School of
Magic, which is more like a regular elementary school;
except that it's attended by young witches, wizards,
werewolves, ninjas, mermaids, etc.
Another similarity is that both series have a main
trio, formed by the main character and his/her two
best friends. There are also further parallels between
the characters from the two trios.
Chacha is not really like Harry in terms of
personality (not to mention that unlike Harry, she's
quite bad at flying ^^;;) But, both characters were
orphaned during infancy when a big evil villain
disposed of their parents (Harry's parents were
killed, Chacha's were turned to stone). Both discover
later in life that they are more than what they
thought themselves to be (Harry finds out he's a
wizard, Chacha finds out she's a princess). Both go to
attend their respective magical schools, where they
meet true friends and find that they are destined to
face the big evil villain again.
Riiya is similar to Ron in many ways. Both are the
tallest among their respective trios. Both are rather
hotheaded and impulsive, and don't really think things
through. Both are fiercely loyal to their friends.
Both come from very large families, and have a lot of
barely-buried resentment towards their many brothers.
Shiine, on the other hand, is similar to Hermione
basically in that he's very bright and studious, and
is the most level head of the trio. Other than that,
their personalities aren't much alike.
Another parallel is between the characters of
Dumbledore and Seravi. Both are hailed as one of the
most powerful magic-users in their respective worlds
(Seravi even holds the official title of "World's
Greatest Magician"). Both serve as mentors to the main
character. Both of them, despite being incredibly
powerful, are willing to let the main character learn
his/her own lessons and figure things out on his/her
own. Both have very quirky and eccentric
personalities, and are sometimes thought of as crazy;
but both know a LOT more than they let on. In fact, I
would go so far as to say that their personalities are
exactly alike! Well, Dumbledore is somewhat more
laid-back, but I imagine that's just the difference
between being 28 years old and being 150 years old.
^^;;
There are other, smaller similarities between the two
series. Like Orin, the little ninja girl with a crush
on Shiine, reminds me a lot of Ginny. ^_^ And Rascal,
one of the teachers at Chacha's school, can be
compared to McGonagall in that he appears very strict
and intimidating, but really has a HUGE soft spot for
his students, and can get very emotional. ^_^ Yakko,
Chacha's self-proclaimed rival, can be compared to
Snape in that she likes to wear black and is an expert
at potions; and also, beneath the mean and scheming
front she puts up, she is actually a good person. ^_^
(end clip)

-Ron Yu, who really hopes he's not the only ACC fan
here


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com



From itachimusume at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 27 10:28:33 2002
From: itachimusume at yahoo.com (itachimusume)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:28:33 -0000
Subject: The Reproduction Habits of Wizards
In-Reply-To: <003801c1bf2b$e3986980$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a5icch+ianu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35798

I think that reproduction rate has to do with the fact that they do 
live longer.  We (muggles in the US) are living longer and longer, 
and we are waiting longer and longer to have children (which 
brings up a lot of medical type problems, but anyway...).  Since 
wizarding folks DO live longer, they simply may want to have 
babies later in life.  And too much waiting may result in infertility.  
That's why the wizarding population is dropping.  

Also, as we can see in our own world.  The better our living 
standards are, the lower the birth rate drops.  Heck, the rate of 
death will out number the rate of birth...  soon.  I can't remember 
the estimates.  So if life in the wizarding world is all wine and 
roses, they may have just reached the point of death over birth.  
That's why theres not that many wizarding folks around.

As for the Weasleys....  Nothing in the literature suggest that they 
live like the middle ages.  It's just that their form of "technological 
advancements" happens through new spells, instead of new 
computers.  They may just very well, like having oodles of 
babies.


Seiko


--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" <huntleyl at m...> 
wrote:
> ^_~ Alright.  Perhaps this post isn't, well...all the subject line 
may have led you to believe.  Just a quick question, actually..
> 
> Why, if wizarding folk live longer (and therefore take a 
correspondingly longer time to hit menopause), are there less 
wizards than Muggles inhabiting the world??
> 
> Combined with the fact that they are better adapted to survival 
and keeping themselves healthy, etc. -- *and* considering many 
of them still uphold medieval values (I.e. make lots and lots of 
kiddies..lookit the Weasleys), one would think the world ought to 
be over run with them.
> 
> Very odd.  Very odd, indeed.
> 
> laura (stroking her chin thoughtfully)
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





From Joanne0012 at aol.com  Wed Feb 27 13:34:26 2002
From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:34:26 -0000
Subject: The Reproduction Habits of Wizards
In-Reply-To: <F232CWKl1A7xYtSCnl200009612@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a5in92+sp4i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35799

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jake Storm" <that1guy_hp at h...> wrote:
> Actually, look at the Weasleys as an exception that makes a rule. Draco has 
> no siblings we've heard about. Nor does Neville, though perhaps he might 
> have, had his parents not been Crucioed into St. Mungos. Only one Chang, one 
> Parkinson, one Nott...look at Harry's fellow students. Very few have 
> siblings. The Creevy brothers, the Patil sisters, erm, I think that's it, 
> other than the Weasleys.

Since the Creeveys are muggle-born and the Patils are twins, that's just further 
support for the very low birthrate among wizards.




From ftah3 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 27 13:43:31 2002
From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:43:31 -0000
Subject: James' Life Debt To Snape?
In-Reply-To: <a5h4e0+anub@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5inq3+meoi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35800

cindysphynx wrote:
> One more quickie thing.  In PoA, in the Shrieking Shack, Snape 
> explodes at Harry thusly:
> 
> "Like father, like son, Potter!  I have just saved your neck; you 
> should be thanking me on bended knee!  You would have been well 
> served if he'd killed you!  You'd have died like your father, too 
> arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black."
> 
> I hope this isn't a dumb question, but are we all agreed that this 
> means that Snape saved James Potter's life and Snape is miffed that 
> James never appreciated it?  Does it mean that Snape gave James 
> information that Black was a spy, but James disregarded it?  Am I 
> reading this wrong or something?

Imho, I don't think that the quoted passage absolutely supports 
this.  "Like father, like son" as well as "I have just saved your 
neck" both could (and in my opinion, do) refer to "too arrogant to 
believe you might be mistaken in Black."  I.e., both father and son 
were too arrogant to think they could be wrong about Black; Harry 
could have been betrayed and killed by Black, just like his father; 
however, unlike in his father's situation, Snape came along and 
rescued him, 
so Harry should be thanking Snape for saving his life.

Imho, for the passage to indicate, as you theorize, that Snape saved 
James' life just like Snape has 'saved' Harry's life, there would 
have to be a more A-to-B connection.  In fact, considering Snape's 
rage at that moment plus being on a talking himself up rant, I think 
if Snape *had* saved James's life in the past he would have thrown 
that factoid at Harry instead of the comparatively less 
stunning "you're an idiot for trusting Black like your father did."  

And the fact that Snape *didn't* outright mention having saved 
James's life at this moment when it would have been incredibly 
opportune to do so actually has had me convinced for a while now that 
Snape never saved James's life, secretly or overtly.

As always, I could be wrong.  :P  But that's my thought.

Mahoney




From plumeski at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 27 13:31:41 2002
From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:31:41 -0000
Subject: Hagrid's Letter
In-Reply-To: <a5i8mi+eo1q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5in3t+qpej@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35801

"caes56" <Caeser56 at s...> wrote:

>      Onto the second topic, this is something that irked me since i 
> first read the books. In the SS, during the first week of classes, 
> Hagrid invites Harry to his house for tea to discuss the first week 
> of classes. In the letter, it says "Harry....I would like to know 
if 
> you'd like to have a cup of tea with me..." This is, of course, 
> quite normal. However, it continues to say "....Please send us a 
> reply....with Hedwig..." What I don't quite get is the "US". Maybe 
> I'm reading a bit too far into it, but that passage always struck 
me 
> as odd. Of course, there are a few explanations that could be given 
> that I myself have thought of- namely that he could have been 
> refferring to himself and Fangs, or himself and Hedwig. I don't, 
> however, think those really fit in.

<snip>

I'd not look for any special meaning in Hagrid's phrase.

The "royal" we/us (ie using first person plural when referring to 
oneself) is fairly common usage in several parts of the UK, 
mainly "oop norf" (Lancashire/Yorkshire). His speech patterns in the 
books made Hagrid appear (to me at least) as a Northerner, rather 
than Cornish (as portrayed by Robbie Coltrane in the movie), though 
Cornish certainly makes sense as well. Even so, whilst the usage 
isn't quite as common in Cornwall, it certainly happens, especially 
among less-educated people.

Oh, and while I'm here, on a question of usage, I'd just like to chip 
in to the "come with" conversation - it's fairly common usage around 
here (UK Midlands). I know I grew up with it, mainly as a 
question: "Are you coming with?", and occasionally still use it.








From Edblanning at aol.com  Wed Feb 27 14:50:04 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:50:04 EST
Subject: Fudge/ PI'ing Sirius' wand/ Reverse Memory/ Flitwick/ James life debt etc
Message-ID: <106.de7de05.29ae4c1c@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35802



--Dicentra, who would think of an acronym but it's lunch time, writes:

> But if you want to go for a more nuanced Fudge--someone who is
> indifferent about Good and Evil and plays both sides against each
> other for his own benefit, then THAT would be an interesting theory.
> 
Well, that in a way is a bit how I see him. I'm not at all convinced that he 
is an inner circle, Dark-Mark-stamped DE. I have actually only suggested that 
1) he was one of Rookwoods network of informants
2) he was Pettigrew's accomplice
3) he has simply sided with whichever side seemed to have the upper hand.

This view deprives him of any excuses. Whether he is an active supporter of 
Voldemort's regime, a  collaborator, or merely a coward who stands by and 
allows evil to happen, we've got him!  

The idea of indifference to good and evil of course ties in nicely with 
D.I.A.N.A.'s ideas about the conflict in the series being not so much as 
between good and evil but between those who recognise these values and those 
who don't.

Kitty answers a question attributed to me (Eloise -  I think I quoted it)

>> > Why, some have asked, did they not simply perform a Priori Incantatum 
>> > on Black's wand or Peter's (assuming he left it behind)? 

>Just as DNA testing has only been a possibility for us muggles for short 
time and >decades old crimes can now be solved (maybe even Jack-the-Ripper, 
saw that on >TV), isn't it possible that Priori Incantem wasn't available in 
the early 80's?  >Perhaps this "new test" could help clear Sirius and convict 
Pettigrew?!  Can you >see Pettigrew scurrying around with his wand, Sirius's 
and V's to hide them? >(Sirius's blasted from his hand in P's big blow.)  
 
I ( Eloise) respond,

Ah ha! The old 'perhaps that spell wasn't available then' defence!
F.I.E. upon you and your eminently reasonable suggestion!
I confess you had me worried there. I had visions of Dicentra and myself 
excavating our way out of the ruins of the carefully crafted 
F.I.D.E.D.I.G.N.O. building.
But no, I don't think so.
First of all, since Priori Incantatem exists as a natural phenomenon, as in 
what happened between Voldy's and Harry's wands, I think it unlikely that it 
was so recently that wizards managed to harness the effect via Prior 
Incantato.
Secondly even if you are correct, I wonder why Dumbledore hasn't done this 
already and released Sirius from his canine troglodytic exile. Why hasn't he? 
Because Sirius is framed, good and proper and it won't help. 
If you get this via digest, you probably haven't had the finer points of the 
theory. I don't see him scurrying round with three wands. At some point 
between the events at Godric's Hollow and the massacre he arranges the 
transfer of Voldy's wand to a person or persons unknown ( but strongly 
suspected to be either Fudge or L. Malfoy or, ,just thought of this, what 
about Crouch Jr - isn't this *before* he's imprisoned?). He drops his guilty 
wand at the scene, where Fudge switches it for Sirius'. It doesn't matter 
that it's *not* his, just that the impression is given that he *used* it. 
                   **********************************************************
Kitty wonders why no one is responding to her great ideas :{!  Are these 
getting through?  Are they too short?)

Kitty my dear!
I know, its so frustrating when that happens. But the trouble is that if 
people agree with you and don't have anything to add, its difficult to say so 
unless you contact them personally because of the one line 'Me too' embargo.

Just for the record, I think your explanation of how Pettigrew ended up with 
the Weasley's is eminently reasonable. The only way I would change it is to 
suggest that rather than just letting himself be found, he probably 
masqueraded as an escaped pet rat in the animal emporium. Wild rats don't 
have a terribly savoury reputation and tend to be disease ridden, apart from 
being...well, *wild*.
           ****************************************************************

Cindy explains about Mrs Lestrange and the Reverse Memory charm:

>The reason is 
>that Mrs. Lestrange (like Elkins) has never *heard* of a Reverse 
>Memory Charm, you see.  Really, how often do wizards need to perform 
>a charm like that?  It doesn't come up every day.  So Moody the 
>skilled Auror knows about it, and Crouch Sr. the head of magical law 
>enforcement knows about it.  Evil-Overlords-In-Training like Mrs. 
>Lestrange have never heard of Reverse Memory Charm.  Lucky for 
>Neville that Mrs. Lestrange didn't know about the Reverse Memory 
>Charm, too, because Mrs. Lestrange isn't grey enough to spare 
>Neville if she believed him to be a threat.

Eloise:
And of course, she works for that Evil OverLord 'Phoenix Tears, I Forgot' 
Voldemort. Give the woman a break (not you, Cindy, I'm addressing the critics 
of your imaginative theory). If the boss is so incompetant, how are the Evil 
Underlings supposed to do better?
Then again we all know now how busy dear Flo was at Hogwarts. Pay attention 
in Charms? She was probably too involved arranging secret assignations behind 
the greenhouses.

                ****************************************************
Cindy again, on Flitwick:
>OK.  Now I think I am starting to get Edge.  I understand Edge 
>because Flitwick apparently has no Edge *at all*.  It's all smooth 
>round corners with Flitwick, if there are any corners at all.  The 
>man is *too* perfect.  Even George and Steady State would be 
>powerless to construct a convincing backstory for Flitwick.  There's 
>just nothing there.  Are we supposed to envy perfection?  Where's 
>the fun in that?  ::heavy sigh::

Eloise:
Cindy? You got 'Flitwick' and 'backstory' into the same sentence?
Yep, nothing doing there. He's so round and spherical he bounces.
Beyond 'Ah, look at the cute little wizard' and a maternal desire to pick him 
up when he's been accidentally sent flying off round his classroom again, he 
does nothing for me whatsoever.
But then, he was a duelling champion. I suppose he must have had *some* edge 
about him once, but it seems to have rubbed off.

                   *****************************************
David:

>When Harry got cross with his aunt at the beginning of POA, he broke her 
glass, >then blew her up.  Later, in GOF, when Snape cracks his notorious 'I 
see no >difference' remark, (to demonstrate to any vampires present that he 
is not toothist), >Harry imagines all sorts of horrible things happening to 
Snape - but they don't.

>I wonder if Snape was using all his magical powers at that time to resist 
Harry's >anger, and is in fact *deliberately* winding him up, so that, in due 
course, Harry >can do something spectacular, with or without his wand, when 
made sufficiently >angry.

Eloise:
There's the obvious difference that Aunt Marge is a muggle and Snape a pretty 
powerful wizard.
However, there are of course a lot of part-trained juvenile wizards with 
mischievous minds and raging hormones roaming around the school. Lots of 
angst and anger and imagined revenges going on. It strikes me that there 
should be quite a lot of accidental magic happening. Maybe one of Hogwarts' 
protective charms protects against magical accidents of this sort. Someone 
will of now, of course, provide an example to prove me wrong!

                           *****************************************
On the subject or Hagrid's letter and the use of 'us'. GulPlum says,

>I'd not look for any special meaning in Hagrid's phrase.

>The "royal" we/us (ie using first person plural when referring to 
>oneself) is fairly common usage in several parts of the UK, 
>mainly "oop norf" (Lancashire/Yorkshire). His speech patterns in the 
>books made Hagrid appear (to me at least) as a Northerner, rather 
>than Cornish (as portrayed by Robbie Coltrane in the movie), though 
>Cornish certainly makes sense as well. 

Eloise:
I agree, in essence, although I believe JKR stated that Hagrid came from the 
West Country, like her. (This IIRC, was on an interview with children on the  
BBC). JKR herself, IIRC comes from near Bristol, so not the deep south-west, 
but more Somerset.
By the way, I think the 'f' sbstitution for 'th' is actually a *southern* 
trait (coming from Cheshire, which is either northern or midlands, depending 
on your viewpoint, but my accent used to be northern, my mother's certainly 
was, and there were no 'f'  substitutes there).
But then, my husband insisted on reading the character to my daughter with a 
Scottish accent on account of knowing that Robbie Coltrane was going to play 
the part!

                 *******************************************************
Cindy . Again!

>"Like father, like son, Potter!  I have just saved your neck; you 
>should be thanking me on bended knee!  You would have been well 
>served if he'd killed you!  You'd have died like your father, too 
>arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black."

>I hope this isn't a dumb question, but are we all agreed that this 
>means that Snape saved James Potter's life and Snape is miffed that 
>James never appreciated it?  Does it mean that Snape gave James 
>information that Black was a spy, but James disregarded it?  Am I 
>reading this wrong or something?

Eloise
My reading is that Snape *attempted* to save James' life and one of the 
things he curses his memory for was that, through James' own pig-headedness, 
he *failed*.

I think we all agree that Snape was probably the one who warned, directly or 
indirectly, the Potters that Voldy was after them. (Incidentally, I 
personally think that it's unlikely they had any personal contact over this. 
I think Dumbledore was the only one who knew about Snape's activities. Would 
James have listened to Snape's advice anyway? I doubt it.)

This passage certainly implies that James was warned not to trust 
Sirius...but then we know that Dumbledore did that. Not so much of 'You can't 
trust that man who tried to feed Snape to a werewolf', as ''There's a leak in 
this organisation. It would be much the best thing if you let *me* be your 
secret-keeper.'
*But*, 'James was too arrogant to believe he might be mistaken in Black'. And 
Snape's right, really, although not exactly as he means. James values Sirius' 
advice over Dumbledore's, takes Peter as secret keeper, and 'Avada Kedavra', 
he's dead.

So....Snape warns him, which *should* save his life, but James' actions 
thwart the attempt.
Now that's the sort of thing that would really piss Snape off. He's tries to 
do something he really didn't want to do, because he hates the man's guts and 
it would serve him jolly well right if Voldy *did* get him, and he's 
*failed*. People like Snape don't like failure. Makes them very cross. 
*That's* why he's miffed. James made him fail. He got one over on him and now 
he's dead, so Snape can't get his own back.
And of course, knowing the truth won't make it any better.

Eloise. Putting off working on that essay.




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




From heidit at netbox.com  Wed Feb 27 15:21:14 2002
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:21:14 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's home in Godric's Hollow, owls as pets?
In-Reply-To: <a5hvor+uc2q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007d01c1bfa2$68a956e0$0301a8c0@Frodo>

No: HPFGUIDX 35803

Lennyb wrote:
> The consensus about Potter's home in Godric's Hollow is that it has 
> been ruined, completely collapsed, destroyed, devastated, leveled and 
> such and such. 
What consensus? I've always thought that it's pretty well smashed, but
not completely reduced to dust particles. 
He also wrote:
>         So, is there someplace where it says that the house 
> completely collapsed in the battle with LV? If so, is Hagrid telling 
> Dumbledore the house was "almost destroyed" an error? 
I don't see this as an inconsistency, and here's why. 

Almost six months ago, the World Trade Center in New York City was, in
the language  we all use to describe it (whatever tongue that is)
"destroyed". It is unreconstructable. Thousands of people were killed
when the building collapsed.

But... In the basement of the buildings, while dust covered everything,
postcards showing the trade centers were still in their racks. Toys were
still on the shelves of the Warner Brothers store. And cookies went
stale on the Mrs Fields stand. The foundation of the building, which
forms the wall of the "bathtub" that keeps the river out of Wall Street,
was undamaged.  

And... From the buildings themselves, a few stories of one of the
outside walls were still standing until they were taken down a few weeks
ago.

But it was "destroyed". Or was it "almost destroyed"? Is there any
meaningful difference?

I'm not saying that whatever happened to the Potters' house, it was in
any way comparable to 9/11 - I'm just saying that the precision of
coloquial language can't be held to a perfectly exact standard - there's
subjectivity even in determining whether something was "destroyed" or
"almost destroyed". This isn't a FLINT (see the acronym directory (aka
INISH ALLEY) for more explanation of a FLINT). This is perspective.

Caeser wrote:
>      Actually, as I am currently in the state of re-reading the 
> Harry Potter Series for the fourth time straight-(this time it's the 
> UK versions I just finally had imported)- I started in November, 
> after being convinced of how good it was in the movie. Anyways, when 
> Ron is on the train to Hogwarts, he tells Harry that "Dad bought 
> Percy an owl because he was made a Prefect..."

I don't think that wizards see owls as mere pets. Even Hagrid says to
Harry that he'll get him his "animal", not his "pet", and the word "pet"
is also not used on the admission letter. While a rat might be a pet -
as Ron says, Scabbers isn't much use for anything - an owl is so much
more. It's a communications tool, a demonstration of status, and not,
like a cat, something that can follow you home. I think even in the
wizarding world, while it might be possible to adopt a stray cat (not a
stray Kneazle, though, as they likely can't go astray accidentally,
thanks to their innate ability to find their way home), it's not really
possible to "adopt" a stray owl. 


heidi



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




From landers at email.unc.edu  Wed Feb 27 15:24:00 2002
From: landers at email.unc.edu (Betty)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:24:00 -0500
Subject: Foe Glass
Message-ID: <3C7CFA10.C0717C7E@email.unc.edu>

No: HPFGUIDX 35804

jktaylor wrote:

> A newbie thought on Snape and the Foe Glass:
>
> When I first read it, I thought that Snape saw himself in the glass,
> because he is his own (worst?!?) enemy.

That's actually is a nice idea, I agree he can be his own worst enemy, 
but I'm afraid the Foe Glass doesn't work that way.

Katze suggested:

> The only thing I can think of it is that the Foe glass shows the enemies
> of the owner. I would guess that the glass belonged to Crouch.
Porphyria wrote: 
This must be it; I *don't* think it's supposed to work like the Mirror 
of Erised. 
large snippage
 Katze must be right in 
that the Foe Glass somehow knows who its owner is. Maybe when you buy a 
Foe Glass, you have to cast some kind of ownership spell on it to let it 
know who you are.
I like this idea, but I don't think Crouch had to own the foe glass.  It
could have been Moody's.  Crouch says he packs all of Moody's Dark Arts
things in his trunk.  It's likely that he could have shrunken it or
expanded the inside of the rtrunk as neeced to fit it. I do like the
idea of a spell the owner casts, and possibly Crouch re-cast the spell
to his own purposes once he'd gotten the foe glass?
Betty



From naama_gat at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 27 16:05:00 2002
From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:05:00 -0000
Subject: AK Stealing Souls; James' Life Debt To Snape?
In-Reply-To: <a5h4e0+anub@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5j03c+sb4u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35805

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> Laura wrote:
> 
> <snip list of shortcomings of AK curse
> 
> You know, this whole AK things sounds like a bit of a scam to me.  
> If AK is unblockable, then DEs are at risk just as innocent victims 
> are.  Indeed, I can imagine James hiding behind a door and hitting 
> Voldemort with AK in the back when Voldemort enters the house.  So 
> why were the DEs becoming so strong way back when if the Good Guys 
> could sneak up on them and AK them, too?
> 
> I hope Milz won't mind if I borrow (well, OK, steal) her theory 
> about AK.  The idea, which is similar to Laura's creative idea, is 
> that Voldemort gains power by using AK to kill people.  In PS/SS, 
we 
> are told that Voldemort kept getting stronger.  So killing Harry 
> would have meant immortality and invincibility for Voldemort.  
> 

But in PS/SS Voldemort was trying to get the philosopher's stone, not 
kill Harry. That was the way for immortality that he chose. And if AK-
ing Harry would have brought him immortality and invincibility, why 
go through all the tedious resurrection ritual (in GoF)? He had Harry 
there. He could have simply AK-ed him, right? 

As for DE's being just as vulnerable to AK, I think that's pretty 
much established. Wasn't it Sirius who told the trio that Crouch 
authorized using the Unvforgivable curses on DEs? (I think. I don't 
have the books here.) AK is certainly described as absolutely 
unblockable (except for the unique case of baby Harry) which strongly 
implies that no spells - dark or otherwise - can make a wizard 
inviolable to it.
I don't think that the fact that the DEs were getting so strong had 
much to do with using or not using AK. Sure, it gives an extra edge 
maybe, but it's not a decisive weapon (like an atomic bomb). It kills 
one person at a time, and I would assume that the difficulty of 
killing a powerful wizard has more to do with catching him unawares 
or disarming him in order to be able to perform the curse in the 
first place. And if you've managed to to catch him unawares or 
disarmed him, then there are other spells you can use to vanquish him.
There are at least two obvious reasons why the DEs were getting so 
strong. One is Voldemort's actual power and deep knowledge of the 
dark arts (he is described as the most powerful wizard in the world, 
barring Dumbledore). The second is that Voldemort provided an 
ideology and, as a leader, a coalition centre. I'm sure JKR meant to 
remind us of Hitler and his ability to bring together, crystalize 
around himself, a movement of hatred. 
The AK and the other Unforgivables add to the terror the DE movement 
inspired, but I don't believe that they in themselves made them more 
powerful.

Naama





From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 27 16:03:13 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:03:13 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew & an accomplice
In-Reply-To: <a5b11e+ff8b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5j001+8j8n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35806

Some recent posts have theorized that Pettigrew had an accomplice 
help him frame Sirius by altering wands and/or hiding Voldemort's 
wand for him.  (Fudge being the favorite suspect of the moment.)  I 
don't think an accomplice was necessary or wise.

Why wasn't an accomplice necessary?  On the surface, the evidence 
against Sirius was so overwhelming that no one felt it necessary to 
really investigate.  Dumbledore himself testified that Sirius was the 
Potter's secret-keeper, and a street full of Muggles said that 
they "saw" the dead sexy guy blow up the street, killing the tiny  
guy and 12 others.  We know that Fudge, as part of the Department of 
Magical Catastrophes, was "one of the first on the scene."  IMO, 
Fudge is an imcompetent idiot rather than a covert DE.  If you assume 
for a moment that he IS an idiot, it isn't hard to imagine that when 
he questioned the Muggle witnesses, he probably failed to ask the 
crucial questions.  (Like, "Did the short guy have a wand behind his 
back?" or "Did the dark-haired guy move his wand just before the 
explosion?")  We also know that Crouch sent Sirius to Azkaban without 
a trial, so there was never an opportunity to REALLY examine the 
evidence.  Sirius's wand didn't need to be altered because no one 
ever felt the need to PI it.

Why wasn't an accomplice wise?  At that point in time, Voldemort had 
just been virtually destroyed at the Potter's house.  As Sirius says 
to Peter in PoA, 

"You haven't been hiding from *me* for twelve years, you've been 
hiding from Voldemort's old supporters.  I heard things in Azkaban, 
Peter...They all think you're dead, or you'd have to answer to 
them...I've heard them screaming all sorts of things in their sleep.  
Sounds like they think the double-crosser double-crossed them.  
Voldemort went to the Potters' on your information... and Voldemort 
met his downfall there.  And not all of Voldemort's supporters ended 
up in Azkaban, did they? ...If they ever got wind that you were still 
alive, Peter--"

In that atmosphere, there is NO WAY Peter could have apparated over 
to another DE and said, "Hi. I'm in a bit of a jam and could use your 
help."

What happened to Sirius's wand?  Fudge and the other MOM wizards took 
it (can't let a prisoner have a weapon) and kept it as evidence.  
Unfortunately, they never used it as evidence.  

What happened to Peter's wand?  I'm guessing he left it behind as 
evidence he was dead.  I think this because Peter doesn't seem to 
have a wand anymore when we finally meet him in the Shreiking Shack.  
If he had one, he would have pulled it out when Lupin transformed 
into a werewolf, rather than grabbing Lupin's off the ground.  Peter 
still doesn't have one in GoF; he uses Voldemort's to AK Cedric.

What happened to Voldemort's wand?  I'll still stick with the easiest 
explanation.  Pettigrew was probably nearby when Voldemort killed 
James and Lily and tried to kill Harry.  After Voldemort lost his 
body, Pettigrew scooped up Voldemort's wand and took off.  Peter hid 
Voldemort's wand someplace safe (either before or after running into 
Sirius-- doesn't matter much to me).  Years later, after escaping 
from Sirius and Remus, he gets the wand back from its hiding place 
and scurries back to Voldemort as fast as 4 little legs can take 
him.  No other accomplices necessary.

-Jennifer, who will be thinking of her beloved Remus as she looks at 
the full moon tonight




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Wed Feb 27 16:20:29 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:20:29 -0000
Subject: AK Stealing Souls
In-Reply-To: <000c01c1bf00$cd013c40$d8c2ded1@huntleyl>
Message-ID: <a5j10d+ksde@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35807

Laura Huntley wrote:

> Yes, I go back and forth between this theory and my own.  Another idea may be that it is "unblockable", that is, if you have the power to use it, you can kill anyone and they don't have a chance -- therefore it is Unforgivable.
> 
> However, I think there's got to be something more to it.  As I stated in my first post, if there wasn't some special benefit to using AK, then why would the DE's be so fond of it?  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I've also given quite a bit of thought to AK (although more on the 
lines on how it works, not what's it for), and I'd like to point out my 
own ideas on the theme. I think that being unblockable is quite enough 
to justify using it (being an adept to videogames where "the best 
offence is a good defense", I always hate attacks which bypass all and 
any conceivable defense), but there are other advantages. Of the top of 
my head, it's very silent. The explosion that "killed" Pettigrew was 
VERY loud. When you're a small group of evil-doers under an evil 
overlord, you don't want to attract attention while you're "working". 
They wanted to take over Britain by fear, with the only proof that 
you'd visited a household was the DeathMark in the sky above the house. 
You're not nearlly as frightening if they can hear you coming. Anyway, 
to counter your disadvantages:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a list of its limitations as expressed by Laura 
Huntley:

> 1)  Can only be used on one person at a time.  Obviously, if you are looking to eliminate enemies efficiently, AK makes no sense.  While you're caught up AKing one guy, the other could be blasting you to smithereens.  Furthermore, if all Voldie wanted to do was kill Harry, think of the multitudes of options he had.  There is hardly any reason for him to even enter the house and risk the attack of James and Lily.  Voldie would hardly need a special, unblockable curse to kill a baby.  Even if Harry had special wards on him to prevent being killed by purely magical means (which I doubt he did), Voldie still had lots of options.
> 
> 2) AK is hard to perform.  Why spent so much energy learning to use AK and then expend the magic needed to perform it when another, easier spell would suffice?
> 
> 3) It seems you need a direct, unblocked way to the victim.  Again, why go through the trouble of entering the Potter's house if he could have just blown it to a fine powder around them?  Entering gave James and Lily a chance to fight back, gave them warning and the time to offer a defense.  If V just blasted them from the outside, they would have no chance to ward themselves, they wouldn't have seen it coming.  So, V must have had a good reason to use AK.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Other listees have mentioned wizards innate resistance to phisical hits 
(Smallbottom's bouncing incident sort of "springs" to mind), so your 
solution of destroying the house around the Potters is not really a 
good idea from Voldie's point of view: if they're expecting it, they 
could have some shield to protect them, or even have innate magical 
capabilities that protects them from falling debrish, and (since it 
would have been pretty noisy), while he was throwing even more magic on 
top, MoM Aurors could arrive to help the Potters. Of course, if the DE 
had to face an army, the AK wouldn't help them, but "facing" was not 
part of the DE moddus opperandi until the quidditch final (note: no 
canon to back this up). The way I see them, they were more like 
assassins, going in the dead of the night to kill anyone who had dared 
opose them (or just anyone at all, to scare people off). 

To resume: it probably helps to think of the AK as an assassin's 
weapon: precise, lethal, silent, and utterly useless in anything that's 
not an assassins work (another example: a dagger soaked in poison)

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> mmm, on the other hand, it's all in how JK wants it to be...
> 
> laura
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Possibly that's the correct answer but, where would the fun be if to 
every question HP4GU presents us we'd answer "because JKR said so"?

Anyway,

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Feb 27 16:26:49 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:26:49 -0000
Subject: Lupin - How to pronounce it?
In-Reply-To: <a5h8l4+3012@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5j1c9+of2h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35808

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

> The only French literary antecedent for "Lupin" I know is Ars?ne 
> Lupin, Gentleman Burglar (have they made animated films about his 
> exploits?),

Yes, there is. It was a Cinar production with laughable animation, not 
bad, but laughable. :-)

> pronounced to rhyme with the French for rabbit, "lapin", 
> which is not the way I'd pronounce Remus's name (Ars?ne being a 
> French character, Remus being an English  - well, maybe not English, 
> but British - one).

Ah, but being a Canadian, lots of English Canadians have French names 
and pronounce them in the French way, despite the fact that they 
couldn't tell French from German. My mother's maiden name was Lavoie. 
I think her great-great-grandfather came from Quebec. No-one in the 
family spoke French. Yet, she stubbornly insisted on pronouncing it 
the French way rather than the English way, until she went and lived 
in Quebec, actually, after which she switched to an English 
pronunciation. This is typical of a lot of Canadians with French 
surnames, though many do go for the English pronunciation. Being from 
this "lost French" background myself, I immediately pronounced the 
French-like names in HP as I would if I met the bearers in Canada. 
People can laugh, and say, "Oh no. I don't pronounce it as French,
 but they get awfully snicketty if you pronounce their French surname 
as English against their inclination. 

Now, that I think of it, of course, this would not be the same in 
Britain, since French names there have a very different history than 
French names in Canada. 

> > Then again, for me Voldemort ends with a hard t.
> 
> Me too. In that case, I'm at a loss to understand why Malfoy should 
> continue to follow French pronunciation... ;-)

In Canada, Malfoy would be a surname, and therefore, I'd automatically 
pronounce it as French. However, Voldemort is an English nom de 
guerre, and I'd pronounce it how it looks, unless corrected, if for 
example someone used that as their nickname. The first is hereditary, 
the second isn't. (Though I would freak out if someone I knew was 
using it as their nickname.)

Eileen




From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 27 16:49:56 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:49:56 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin - How to pronounce it?
Message-ID: <F145MezIZYD0OJFjiDO0000fc36@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35809

>From: "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at yahoo.ca>
>Being from
>this "lost French" background myself, I immediately pronounced the
>French-like names in HP as I would if I met the bearers in Canada.

You don't have be from a "lost French" background, or live in Canada, to 
make such a mistake. When I picked up Sorceror's Stone this past October and 
began to read, I got to the scene on the Hogwarts Express wherein Hermione 
is introduced and I paused briefly and determined that her name must be 
pronounced in the way the French would pronounce it: err-MYUHN 
(sorta...phonetic french isn't my forte). This, based on two years of 
highschool French, thirteen years ago. I then modified it to be Anglicised, 
to Her-me-OWN. I went like that until Hermione herself corrected me, in 
Goblet. Deep down, I still pronounce it a bit like Ron with a mouthful of 
Yorkshire pudding: Her-MY-knee, dropping the all-but-swallowed "oh" 
completely.

J

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




From adhara_black at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Feb 27 16:52:01 2002
From: adhara_black at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Adhara=20Black?=)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:52:01 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pettigrew & an accomplice
In-Reply-To: <a5j001+8j8n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020227165201.93977.qmail@web21301.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35810


Jennifer wrote:
What happened to Sirius's wand?  Fudge and the other
MOM wizards took it (can't let a prisoner have a
weapon) and kept it as evidence.  Unfortunately, they
never used it as evidence.  

Adhara writes:
I can't work out how they would use Sirius' wand as
evidence. As far as we know, Priori Incantatem only
works when two wands with a feather from the same
animal are used against each other (GoF page 605)
(unless it is known who has a wand similar to his).
Suggestions?

Jennifer also wrote:
Jennifer, who will be thinking of her beloved Remus
as she looks at the full moon tonight.

Adhara writes:
Aha. A Remus fan. Mmmh..indeed, there will be a full
moon tonight. It is the 15th of the month of Adar. 

Adhara - who can't wait for Sirius' name to be cleared
(and see the despicable traitors beg for His mercy)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com



From jktaylor at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 27 16:38:54 2002
From: jktaylor at yahoo.com (jktaylor)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:38:54 -0000
Subject: Foe Glass
In-Reply-To: <718167DE-2AEE-11D6-BC04-000393465128@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <a5j22v+fdj2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35811

Julie, cheeks slightly pink with embarrassment, ventures out of lurk 
mode once more.  Alas, my initial impression of Snape and the Foe 
Glass does seem to be invalidated on the very next page <sighs 
heavily and averts eyes>  But it really did feel profound at the 
time, and I wanted it to be - sorry!

Still, there is something interesting about the fact that he chooses 
to look at himself in the glass.  Perhaps he's thinking, "I really 
should get one of these ? I wonder if they come in black?"  OR maybe 
he's thinking, "Yup, I must be a good guy; I'm in the foe glass!  
But, let me look closer? Potter is nowhere to be seen!  I should take 
5 points from Gryffindor for that!"

Julie T. (who is going back into lurk mode with a promise to re-read 
GOF in it's entirety)


--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Porphyria <porphyria at m...> wrote:
> jktaylor wrote:
> 
> > A newbie thought on Snape and the Foe Glass:
> >
> > When I first read it, I thought that Snape saw himself in the 
glass,
> > because he is his own (worst?!?) enemy.
> 
> That's actually is a nice idea, I agree he can be his own worst 
enemy, 
> but I'm afraid the Foe Glass doesn't work that way.
> 






From ftah3 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 27 17:08:26 2002
From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:08:26 -0000
Subject: AK Stealing Souls
In-Reply-To: <a5j03c+sb4u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5j3qb+kt6e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35812

I've been reading some of the 'why is the Avada Kedavra 
curse "unforgivable"?' discussion, and in the middle of it all my 
train of thought jumped tracks a bit.

There has been talk of AK stealing souls, or making it's user more 
powerful, stuff like that (which made me think of the Quickenings 
in 'Highlander' actually :P).  Also, there are arguments as to it 
being particularly dangerous, or about the fact that perhaps its 
function is *only* to do harm to others, and in light of the fact 
that the other two Unforgiveable curses function only to do harm 
(manipulate without consent, or cause pain), it would make sense for 
AK to fall in that category....

But I keep thinking about Voldemort.  Specifically Voldemort, who 
canon *seems* (as far as my own reading) to imply used AK a *lot,* 
quite possibly much, much more than any of the other baddies.

Voldemort:

- didn't die when the 'killing curse' bounced back on him, but 
instead became less powerful ~ powerless in terms of use of magic and 
any other dangerous form of force, yet able to go off and hide; 
existing in such a way that the best (only?) way for him to return as 
a force in the world is to join the physical being of another 
wizard.  

- when the body he had parasitized(?) was destroyed, still managed to 
escape in...some form.  

- again was able to continue to try to regain power with the help of 
another wizard, but in the form of a strange, small, physically 
helpless, baby-like, snake-venom-suckling entity.

- regained physical form & strength and ability to use magic through 
a Dark spell, but doesn't look altogether human any more.

I've noticed that canon describes certain of Voldemort's very strange 
forms, while never describing the form in which he existed prior to 
being picked up and helped by other wizards.  But even the forms 
described indicate that he wasn't particularly *normal*.  (I mean, in 
light of the fact that with the exception of ghostly forms, other 
wizards don't appear to turn into very weird, half-alive half-
something-else, non-human forms when hit with a killing curse or 
otherwise killed.

I guess I wonder...could the strange non-death of Voldemort have been 
only the result of being hit with a rebounded AK which for some 
reason has a different effect than a direct AK?

Or could part of the "Unforgiveable" classification of the AK be due 
to the effect it has on the user?  There is a tradition in fiction 
(and in philosophy, religion and, in a way, also science) as far as 
Doing Bad Things Will Have A Negative Effect On the Do-Badder.  And 
also as far as Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.  Etc.  The AK 
curse is a willful, unequivocable, immediate ending of life.  The 
*only* known shield against it is the mysteriously concocted and well-
timed application of a dying mother's love into the very essence of 
her infant son.  I.e., the most powerful mojo of intense mother-love 
is the only thing that can stand against the powerful mojo of all-
powerful old-blooded murder.

I guess I'm suggesting is that perhaps the evil involved in the use 
of AK isn't a one-way street.  Perhaps it is an active evil, just as 
the mother-love that saved Harry had to become an active thing also ~ 
it had to become a power in and of itself, affecting in this case 
Harry, in order to work.  Soooo...what if part of the reason that 
Voldemort survived the rebounded AK, and survived in such mysterious 
and bizarre form is because his use of this Unforgivable Curse 
actually, physically & magically, twisted his very being in some 
way?  And the Unforgivable classification is due in part to 
foreknowledge of this eventuality?

Mahoney




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Feb 27 17:21:42 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:21:42 -0000
Subject: Fudge is Way Evil and I have the acronyms to prove it
In-Reply-To: <a5glh9+mfhl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5j4j7+lj3e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35813

::Pippin gives the cape a whirl, but decides it makes her look like 
a vampire::

 Dumbledore asks the students to do three things, in order to 
choose what is right over what is easy.

1) Acknowledge that Dumbledore is telling the truth. Voldemort 
has returned 
2) Set aside their old enmities and differences
3) Consider themselves welcome at Hogwarts

The three adults, Fudge, Karkaroff and Bagman, act out  the 
rejection of this message.

1)Fudge does not acknowledge Voldemort's return
2)Karkaroff cannot set aside the differences between himself 
and Dumbledore
3)Bagman flees Hogwarts, covering up his own crimes, not 
Voldemort's

So if Fudge does indeed realize that Voldemort has returned and 
is covering up, it knocks the artistic and logical stuffing out of 
Dumbledore's speech. There is then no one whom we can be 
sure has heard the bad news and refused to believe it. 

Fudge's prejudice in believing that people of "very old family" who 
contribute to "excellent causes" are  not capable of anything 
shady, and his belief that the Dementors are under control are 
objective evils, but not the result of malice, IMO.  Therefore I don't 
consider Fudge evil. "Those who aren't with us are against us," 
sounds too much like old Crouch for me.

Dicentra said--
>But if you want to go for a more nuanced Fudge--someone who 
isindifferent about Good and Evil and plays both sides against 
eachother for his own benefit, then THAT would be an interesting 
theory.<

and signed off:
--Dicentra, who would think of an acronym but it's lunch time

M.A.L.F.O.Y.
Machiavellian Alliances  Let Fudge Optimize? Yipes!

which sums up my feeling that Lucius is the character who does 
this.

Pippin




From saramull at optonline.net  Wed Feb 27 18:05:22 2002
From: saramull at optonline.net (sarah28962000)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:05:22 -0000
Subject: Hagrid's Letter, Re: Weasley's Pets
In-Reply-To: <a5i8mi+eo1q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5j752+3npo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35814

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "caes56" <Caeser56 at s...> wrote:

>      Another thought I had occured to me after reading a JKR 
> interview. She stated something to the effect that we've met the 
> ravenclaw ghost- The Grey Lady- in book 1 but we didn't know it 
yet. 

I didn't see the interview, but in chapter 12, when Harry and Ron go 
looking for the mirror of Erised, they pass "the ghost of a tall 
witch gliding in the opposite direction".  I would bet that's her.

Sarah





From Edblanning at aol.com  Wed Feb 27 18:24:25 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:24:25 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pettigrew & an accomplice
Message-ID: <50.7415435.29ae7e59@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35815



> Adhara writes:
> I can't work out how they would use Sirius' wand as
> evidence. As far as we know, Priori Incantatem only
> works when two wands with a feather from the same
> animal are used against each other (GoF page 605)
> (unless it is known who has a wand similar to his).
> Suggestions?
> 

That's 'Priori Incantatem'.  'Priori Incantato' is the spell used by (I 
think) Amos Diggory to prove that Harry's wand cast the Dark Mark at the 
World Cup.

Jennifer: 

>Some recent posts have theorized that Pettigrew had an accomplice 
>help him frame Sirius by altering wands and/or hiding Voldemort's 
>wand for him.  (Fudge being the favorite suspect of the moment.)  I 
>don't think an accomplice was necessary or wise.

>Why wasn't an accomplice necessary?  On the surface, the evidence 
>against Sirius was so overwhelming that no one felt it necessary to 
>really investigate.  Dumbledore himself testified that Sirius was the 
>Potter's secret-keeper, and a street full of Muggles said that 
>they "saw" the dead sexy guy blow up the street, killing the tiny  
>guy and 12 others.  We know that Fudge, as part of the Department of 
>Magical Catastrophes, was "one of the first on the scene."  IMO, 
>Fudge is an imcompetent idiot rather than a covert DE.  If you assume 
>for a moment that he IS an idiot, it isn't hard to imagine that when 
>he questioned the Muggle witnesses, he probably failed to ask the 
>crucial questions.  (Like, "Did the short guy have a wand behind his 
>back?" or "Did the dark-haired guy move his wand just before the 
explosion?")  We also know that Crouch sent Sirius to Azkaban without 
>a trial, so there was never an opportunity to REALLY examine the 
>evidence.  Sirius's wand didn't need to be altered because no one 
>ever felt the need to PI it.

Eloise 

>The reason why some of us think an accomplice is necessary is that Peter's 
plan >was so unlikely to succeed. If Sirius had kept his head, it could have 
been cleared >up, partially by PI'ing his wand. He knew what Peter had done. 
If he had got word of >it to Dumbledore, he would have had a powerful ally on 
his side. Instead, he >(understandably) went to pieces and apparently 
confessed, not just in front of >muggles but in front of ministry officials. 
Pettigrew could *not* assume that the >wands would not have been tested. It 
was a plan as full of holes as a Swiss >cheese.

Jennifer:

>Why wasn't an accomplice wise?  At that point in time, Voldemort had 
>just been virtually destroyed at the Potter's house.  As Sirius says 
>to Peter in PoA, 

>"You haven't been hiding from *me* for twelve years, you've been 
>hiding from Voldemort's old supporters.  I heard things in Azkaban, 
>Peter...They all think you're dead, or you'd have to answer to 
>them...I've heard them screaming all sorts of things in their sleep.  
>Sounds like they think the double-crosser double-crossed them.  
>Voldemort went to the Potters' on your information... and Voldemort 
>met his downfall there.  And not all of Voldemort's supporters ended 
>up in Azkaban, did they? ...If they ever got wind that you were still 
>alive, Peter--"

>In that atmosphere, there is NO WAY Peter could have apparated over 
>to another DE and said, "Hi. I'm in a bit of a jam and could use your 
>help."

Eloise. 

Very good point, *If Fudge was an evil DE*, but I think that what both 
Dicentra and I are saying is that he is an *evil accomplice*
I don't think he's stayed loyal to Voldemort. ( see my last post)

Jennifer:


>What happened to Sirius's wand?  Fudge and the other MOM wizards took 
>it (can't let a prisoner have a weapon) and kept it as evidence.  
>Unfortunately, they never used it as evidence.  

Eloise:

Yep. Or in our version, the evidence was supressed ( or destroyed)

Jennifer:

>What happened to Peter's wand?  I'm guessing he left it behind as 
>evidence he was dead.  I think this because Peter doesn't seem to 
>have a wand anymore when we finally meet him in the Shreiking Shack.  
>If he had one, he would have pulled it out when Lupin transformed 
>into a werewolf, rather than grabbing Lupin's off the ground.  Peter 
>still doesn't have one in GoF; he uses Voldemort's to AK Cedric.

Eloise:

Exactly. This is where I came in. Peter's wand disappears. Fudge *tells* us 
what is left of Peter: Blood-stained robes and a few fragments. * No wand*.

Eloise, who seems to be repeating herself rather a lot lately, and assumes 
that  it's because her original Evil Fudge post went out with the wrong title 
( I hit the Send Now button accidentally!)



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




From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com  Wed Feb 27 18:52:51 2002
From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:52:51 -0000
Subject: How to pronounce it? Loo-pin - Definitely
References: <a5h8l4+3012@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007701c1bfc1$70f85200$179abc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 35816


> I was wondering. How to people prononunce Lupin?
> > Having a good education in French, I pronounced it that way, the 
same way as an animated cartoon character of the same name :-). 


I think its fair to say, JKR being British, lupins being flowers grown in Britain, and the book being generally aimed at the younger (initially British) reader, that dear Remus's name shoul be prounounced LOO-pin.  Having consulted my vade mecum on the subject (Stephen Fry reading THE audio book) alas, the romance of French pronunciation passed him by and LOO-pin it is. 

Felicia Rickman


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




From ftah3 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 27 19:17:36 2002
From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:17:36 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew & an accomplice
In-Reply-To: <50.7415435.29ae7e59@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a5jbcg+a5vk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35817

Eloise wrote:
> >The reason why some of us think an accomplice is necessary is that 
Peter's 
> plan >was so unlikely to succeed. If Sirius had kept his head, 

Full stop!  Sirius Black, keep his head?  Firstly, Peter's plan 
(betray, and then frame Black by making it seem Black killed him 
[Peter] too) is a very good one, as plans go, because from what we 
know of both young and old Sirius, he was a headstrong, impulsive 
kind of person, which Peter knows.  So the second part of the plan ~ 
i.e., Black not keeping his head in order to make a good, level-
headed defense of himself ~ could be a likely, if not absolute, 
follow-on.

Eloise again:
> it could have 
> been cleared >up, partially by PI'ing his wand. He knew what Peter 
had done. 
> If he had got word of >it to Dumbledore, he would have had a 
powerful ally on 
> his side. 

1. What was the condition of Sirius and his wand after an explosion 
that leveled buildings and killed nearby Muggles?  All we know is 
that he stood there and laughed when authorities arrived and arrested 
him.  It's possible that he stood there, battered and bloody, with a 
busted wand in his hand, and laughed while the authorities arrested 
him and summarily took him to a doctor under guard.  

2. Presuming Black's wand was in tact, I don't think that a cover-up 
is the only explanation for the fact that no mention is made of the 
PI spell being used as evidence.  We don't know the possible 
restrictions of the PI.  I mean, Black supposedly used a spell that 
made things go 'boom.'  How many spells do that?  The last spell 
Black could have used may have been a spell that a) lit something on 
fire, b) blasted something out of the way, c) used exerted force to 
lift/move/shift/bother/annoy something, d) any number of forcible 
activities.  Can the PI differentiate?  Can it demonstrate amount of 
force?  Maybe.  Can it demostrate intent?  No.

Also, can the PI evoke spells which do nothing more than make things 
go 'boom'?  The spell Crouch Jr. used at the beginning of GoF made an 
image in the sky, so it was fairly obvious to use PI to see if the 
wand would make a ghost of that image.  But if the spell takes no 
physical form, and thus there is no physical thing to 'ghost' out of 
the wand, will PI even work?

Eloise wrote:
> Peter's wand disappears. Fudge *tells* us 
> what is left of Peter: Blood-stained robes and a few fragments. * 
No wand*.

Right: 'fragments.'  If Peter set off the spell, timing it to go off 
as he shrunk himself into his Animagus rat self which would tumble 
down the drain...ground zero of the explosive spell is right where he 
left his blood-stained robes and *wand*.  He couldn't take his wand 
with him as a rat, but the wand couldn't have withstood the 
explosion.  No wand, because the wand went kablooey; and, because no 
wand left to be either PI'd nor spirited away by an accomplice, no 
accomplice is necessary to spirit away the wand or suppress/tinker 
with evidence.  And if a busted wand (a la Ron's) can't do spells 
properly, it's not a stretch for myownself to imagine that they won't 
get much out of the blasted smithereens of a wand using the PI spell.

Mahoney




From klhurt at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 27 19:24:36 2002
From: klhurt at yahoo.com (Kelly Hurt)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:24:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Telling Harry + Amos Diggory & Harry
In-Reply-To: <a5dcqo+outq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20020227192436.31966.qmail@web14203.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35818

--- conquistas2000 wrote:

>In SS/PS, the wizard folks recognize
>Harry (Tip their hat, etc..), and
>happens often enough that Harry
>notices it.  In the 10 years, why
>didn't any of the wizards/witches
>strike up a conversaion with Harry or
>tell of his origins?

I've always assumed (no textual evidence) that whenever Harry left
Privet Drive, Dumbledore had wizards & witches watching him with orders
to protect Harry & keep Voldemort supporters away from him but they
were also ordered not to tell Harry anything.

So, to sum up my theory, they came to barrier Harry not to apprise him.
 
[I know.  I know.  But I just couldn't resist!]

--- cindysphynx wrote:

>I think Amos will manifest his grief
>by stirring up trouble for Harry at
>MoM.

I've been wondering if, instead of a Dursley summer interlude in OoP,
that we might see Harry on trial?  This would fulfill JKR's promise
that Harry would go somewhere we've heard of but not been:  the MoM
and, possibly, Azkaban.

If not an actual trial, perhaps Harry will be ordered to undergo the
wizarding version of a psych exam?  This could take him to St. Mungo's
where he could meet the Longbottoms & see Lockhart again (something
else JKR promised).

Kelly the Yarn Junkie (whose GONERs list keeps growing)

=====
Pensieve
A Harry Potter List for Adults
Low Traffic - High Quality
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pensieve

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com



From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Wed Feb 27 20:36:27 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:36:27 -0000
Subject: AK Stealing Souls
In-Reply-To: <a5j3qb+kt6e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5jg0b+fid5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35819

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ftah3" <ftah3 at y...> wrote:
<snip: theory on inner workings of AK>
> I guess I'm suggesting is that perhaps the evil involved in the use 
> of AK isn't a one-way street.  Perhaps it is an active evil, just as 
> the mother-love that saved Harry had to become an active thing also ~ 
> it had to become a power in and of itself, affecting in this case 
> Harry, in order to work.  Soooo...what if part of the reason that 
> Voldemort survived the rebounded AK, and survived in such mysterious 
> and bizarre form is because his use of this Unforgivable Curse 
> actually, physically & magically, twisted his very being in some 
> way?  And the Unforgivable classification is due in part to 
> foreknowledge of this eventuality?
> 
> Mahoney

I'm not altoghether sure I've followed your theory from the beggining 
to the end, so feel free to disagree with what I'm about to say.

The last question is easy: No, there was no foreknowledge of what 
happened to Voldie after the rebounded curse hit him, since two 
first-timers occoured at that time: for the first time someone survived 
to the AK curse, and, thus, for the first time someone was hit by a 
rebounded AK course. If there was no foreknowledge, it cannot be part 
of the definition of "unforgivable curse". Anyway, even allowing it to 
be true (as in "it was known by the sages of ancient times" or 
whatever), I don't see how that would tie with the other two 
unforgivable curses, which are not known to rebound.

Of course, this train of thought takes us back to square one: what 
common characteristic have those three curses have that no other spell 
has? For some time (two or three pages) I thought they were unstopable, 
but we've since been told that any amount of people can throw the 
Imperious curse off. Thus, my on theory (a variation of the original) 
right now says that "unforgivable curses are those spells that cannot 
be countered by any magical mean". No amount of wand-weaving will stop 
any of the three from reaching it's destiny (phisical means are still 
useful, like getting behind a gravestone, as are psiquical means, like 
the one seen in the Imperious). Harry has never told us if he's learnt 
shield magic (protective magic), but I assume some must exists, since 
all wizards have innate shielding capabilities (? la bouncing 
Longbottom), and it seems only natural that when they started 
developing magical capabilities in antiquity they started by 
strengthening their own innate powers. Anyway, the theory is still at 
infant stage, so feel free to disagree or colaborate.

Hope that helps

Grey Wolf





From Edblanning at aol.com  Wed Feb 27 20:43:31 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:43:31 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fudge is Way Evil and I have the acronyms to prove it
Message-ID: <bf.1c1846d6.29ae9ef3@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35820

> 
> ::Pippin gives the cape a whirl, but decides it makes her look like 
> a vampire::
> 
> Dumbledore asks the students to do three things, in order to 
> choose what is right over what is easy.
> 
> 1) Acknowledge that Dumbledore is telling the truth. Voldemort 
> has returned 
> 2) Set aside their old enmities and differences
> 3) Consider themselves welcome at Hogwarts
> 
> The three adults, Fudge, Karkaroff and Bagman, act out  the 
> rejection of this message.
> 
> 1)Fudge does not acknowledge Voldemort's return
> 2)Karkaroff cannot set aside the differences between himself 
> and Dumbledore
> 3)Bagman flees Hogwarts, covering up his own crimes, not 
> Voldemort's
> So if Fudge does indeed realize that Voldemort has returned and 
> is covering up, it knocks the artistic and logical stuffing out of 
> Dumbledore's speech. There is then no one whom we can be 
> sure has heard the bad news and refused to believe it. 

Eloise:
Now this is a good argument. But I think that I have suggested that in fact 
Fudge doesn't want to hear the bad news, that he is in fact reacting in 
dismayed disbelief. He doesn't want to know. It'll disturb his comfortable 
world too much. 

> Fudge's prejudice in believing that people of "very old family" who 
> contribute to "excellent causes" are  not capable of anything 
> shady, and his belief that the Dementors are under control are 
> objective evils, but not the result of malice, IMO.  Therefore I don't 
> consider Fudge evil. "Those who aren't with us are against us," 
> sounds too much like old Crouch for me.
> 
> 
Eloise:
Isn't this effectively what Dumbledore says, in 'The Parting of the Ways'?
My  case is that Fudge *did* do wrong, out of self interest, but since 
Voldy's fall has not supported him in any active way. He has sided with the 
establishment - again, out of self interest. Insofar as he has done anything 
actively wrong since Voldy's fall, it has been to cover up his own misdeeds, 
nothing more. *But*, he lacks the insight and more critically the will to act 
against the gathering forces of darkness. He has, after all, been bombarding 
Dumbledore with owls asking for advice, but now, at the critical moment, he 
just doesn't want to know. Perhaps, as you say, this is objective evil, 
rather than the result of malice, but I think it is a critical point that 
evil can be *allowed* as well as deliberately caused. There is a fine line 
between doing wrong and knowingly not acting to prevent it. Sins of omission 
and all that. I think that the later Fudge is precisely an example of this.
My view of him is, incidentally the inverse of my view of Snape.
I see Snape as a strong man who did evil very deliberately, but who having 
realised his error made a principled decision to change sides. I see Fudge as 
a weak man, who hasn't decided anything. he's just gone with the flow and now 
he and potentially the rest of the wizarding world are in Big Trouble.

Eloise, who really thinks that she has argued this thing to death and is 
hanging up the cape and dearstalker for a bit. Anyone fancy the pipe?



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




From aiz24 at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 27 20:49:02 2002
From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:49:02 -0500
Subject: Neville vs. the DEs, Percy challenge, the brave, FIRE, Snape, puns, sermon
Message-ID: <F23eVGiSu5C5JAGZ9XZ00000e02@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35821

Cindy wrote:

>Why doesn't Mrs. Lestrange fire up toddler Neville with a Cruciatus curse 
>to make his parents talk?

'Cause he was at the babysitter's?

Seriously, if the Crouch Junior Gang had tortured Neville, wouldn't we have 
heard about it?  There's Crouch Sr., ranting about how this is the most 
heinous crime they've seen, and dying to send them all to Azkaban to rot, 
and he neglects to mention the most heinous thing they've done?

If someone already said this, here <presents fingers to be stuffed in 
toaster>.  I've been away and can't catch up.

Tabouli, worried about the lack of guidance counselors at Hogwarts, noted:

>Percy tries to dispense some career counselling, which IIRC Harry 
>disregards.

Actually, Harry follows Percy's career advice, though probably not because 
it came from Percy.  In any case, he regrets it thoroughly, because the 
advice was to take Divination.

Here's a challenge to Percy-lovers (like Penny doesn't have enough to do): 
compile a list of *positive* Percy moments.  I like Percy against all 
reason, but the more I reread, the more evident it is that JKR doesn't like 
him and doesn't intend her readers to.  The thing I like least about Percy 
is, in fact, that he's very cartoonishly written.  Not as bad as Lockhart, 
but up there.  He bustles, he says things pompously, he looks smug--almost 
every time we see him he's given a negative valuation.

Cindy wrote:

>Fudge, Karkaroff and Bagman have chose easy over right (I think).  I'm 
>looking around for people who have chosen right over easy.  Snape, maybe.  
>There aren't too many other names that come to mind.

Aw, sure!  Harry, Ron, Hermione, Sirius, Dumbledore . . . anyone who has 
ever resisted joining the DEs or fought against them.

Dicentra wrote:

>Fight F.I.E if you can.  Fight F.I.R.E. too (Fudge Is *Really* Evil).

How about fighting F.I.R.E. (Fudge Is *Really* Evil) with F.I.R.E. (Fudge, 
Imperio'd, Resists Entirely)?  or F.I.R.E. (Fudge Is Really Exemplary)?  or 
F.I.R.E. (Fudge Inflames Ravenclaw Educator)?  <raises umbrella before Jenny 
the Ravengeist lets loose with the water balloons>

Cindy wrote:

>"Like father, like son, Potter!  I have just saved your neck; you should be 
>thanking me on bended knee!  You would have been well served if he'd killed 
>you!  You'd have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might 
>be mistaken in Black."

Well, okay, Cindy didn't write that.  But she did write this:

>I hope this isn't a dumb question, but are we all agreed that this means 
>that Snape saved James Potter's life and Snape is miffed that James never 
>appreciated it?  Does it mean that Snape gave James information that Black 
>was a spy, but James disregarded it?  Am I reading this wrong or something?

Hm.  No, maybe, and no.  No, you're not reading it wrong, but no, we aren't 
all agreed that Spy Snape fed Dumbledore/the Potters the information that 
Sirius was a spy.  It's very likely but not at all proven--it's a maybe.  
Like Mrs. Lestrange Is Florence.  Or more on the level of The Woman in the 
Pensieve is Mrs. Lestrange.

However, if Snape DID give that information and IS miffed that James ignored 
it, it doesn't follow that Snape saved his life (to be precise, no one saved 
his life.  As Hermione reminds us, James is, well, dead).  Snape tried and 
failed.  But if his warning *had* been heeded, what would have happened?  
James and Lily would have decided not to trust Sirius and instead made 
someone they did trust their Secret-Keeper.  Oh, I don't know--someone like, 
say, Peter.

Maybe that's what happened.  Maybe Sirius hates Snape so intensely because 
he suspects that Snape told J&L that he, Sirius, was a spy and they began 
distrusting him.  Sirius didn't know it at the time; he suggested the switch 
himself; but far from needing convincing, James and Lily were extremely 
relieved that Sirius backed out of the arrangement.

OK, I don't really think that's what happened.  It was just a thought.  
Anyone who wants to fine-tune it is welcome to it.  In the meantime, I'll be 
over here trying out Smeltings sticks.

Kelly wrote:

>So, to sum up my theory, they came to barrier Harry not to apprise him.

<appreciative groan>

BTW, I was too shy to mention it besides the automatic notification, but 
<blushes, looks down at toe, tracing carpet patterns> I posted an HP sermon 
I gave recently to the Files (HPService.doc).  Despite being 
[over]simplified for kids, it does pose a debatable theory, namely that JKR 
is going to get with the program and stop stereotyping Houses.  I'm probably 
wrong, but I hope not.  I use the term "Potterologist" in the intro, too.

Amy Z

--------------------------------------------------
The Whomping Willow was a very violent tree that
stood alone in the middle of the grounds.
                 -HP and the Prisoner of Azkaban
--------------------------------------------------

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




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Feb 27 20:56:23 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:56:23 -0000
Subject: Percivale
Message-ID: <a5jh5n+gelh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35822

During all our discussions of Percy, much speculation has been given 
over to whether Percy is derived from Percivale, and what this means 
from the story.

But, reading T.H. White's "The Once and Future King", I began to 
wonder. You see, Percivale is plain Percy in that story and is a bit 
of a joke. Here's his brother Aglovale.

"Well, a lady appeared at this point - they found out afterwards she 
was a fairy, and not a very nice one at that - and asked him fiercely 
what he was trying to do. Percy said: "I do neither good nor great 
ill, what?" So the lady lent him a black horse which turned out to be 
a fiend, and it vanished in dramatic circumstances when Percy luckily 
crossed himself that evening....

It goes on like that, and finally Guenever says,

"I don't mean to be rude, Sir Aglovale, but your brother does not 
seem to have done much."

"He has preserved his integrity," said Arthur.

I suppose it's mean to dear old Percy, but perhaps he's derived from 
Percivale by way of White's Percy?

Eileen




From cindysphynx at home.com  Wed Feb 27 21:10:56 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:10:56 -0000
Subject: First-Rate Chapter Endings
Message-ID: <a5ji10+5eqe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35823

I was listening to PoA *again*, and something kind of occurred to 
me.    

JKR writes great chapter endings, IMO.  I don't know what a creative 
writing expert would say.  But for me, great chapter endings are 
those that make it impossible to put the book down and go to 
sleep.   Chapter endings that give the reader just enough 
information to keep things interesting and raise lots of thorny 
story questions.  Chapter endings that end in exactly the right 
place.

I think the very best HP chapter ending might be the conclusion 
of "Cat, Rat and Dog" in PoA in the Shrieking Shack scene. After a 
struggle with Black, Lupin bursts in and takes control.  Wands are 
flying.  Lupin spins a big mystery with dots moving all over the 
Map.  Then Lupin gets a look at Scabbers:

"What's my rat got to do with anything?"
"That's not a rat," croaked Sirius Black suddenly.
"What d'you mean -- of course he's a rat --"
"No, he's not," said Lupin quietly.  "He's a wizard."
"An Animagus," said Black, "by the name of Peter Pettigrew."

Now, how can anyone stop reading after suddenly learning that 
Peter's alive, that Peter is a rat, that Peter has been hiding in 
Ron's pocket for three books, that Black isn't evil, that Lupin 
isn't evil, that Lupin is a werewolf, and that Black and Lupin are 
friends, all in just 5 pages?  

Cindy (who thought there were some great chapter endings in GoF, but 
isn't so sure about PS/SS and CoS)




From aiz24 at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 27 21:16:27 2002
From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:16:27 -0000
Subject: Why AK is Unforgivable (was AK Stealing Souls)
In-Reply-To: <a5jg0b+fid5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5jibb+4hem@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35824

The lupinesque Gray Wolf theorized:

>Thus, my on theory (a variation of the original) 
> right now says that "unforgivable curses are those spells that 
cannot 
> be countered by any magical mean". No amount of wand-weaving will 
stop 
> any of the three from reaching it's destiny (phisical means are 
still 
> useful, like getting behind a gravestone, as are psiquical means, 
like 
> the one seen in the Imperious). Harry has never told us if he's 
learnt 
> shield magic (protective magic), but I assume some must exists, 
since 
> all wizards have innate shielding capabilities (? la bouncing 
> Longbottom), and it seems only natural that when they started 
> developing magical capabilities in antiquity they started by 
> strengthening their own innate powers.

Harry does start to learn shield charms for the third task, actually 
(chapter 31--it's the one Hermione breaks through with a Jelly-Legs 
Jinx), and I think you hit the nail on the head:  they're ineffective 
against AK.  Otherwise, wouldn't Moody say "there's no blocking it, 
except if you put up a very strong Shield Charm and the wizard trying 
to kill you isn't too powerful?"

Amy Z

---------------------------------------------------
 . . . They made their way into the entrance hall,
 which was completely devoid of mad axe-men.
                  -HP and the Prisoner of Azkaban
---------------------------------------------------




From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 27 21:19:54 2002
From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:19:54 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] First-Rate Chapter Endings
Message-ID: <F297U3K5U8cHOwf7SND00010214@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35825

>From: "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at home.com>
>Cindy (who thought there were some great chapter endings in GoF, but
>isn't so sure about PS/SS and CoS)

Well, how about this one, the end of chapter 3 of SS:

"One minute to go and he'd be eleven. Thirty seconds... twenty ... ten...
nine -- maybe he'd wake Dudley up, just to annoy him -- three... two...
one...

BOOM.

The whole shack shivered and Harry sat bolt upright, staring at the
door. Someone was outside, knocking to come in."

Pretty much you've *got* to turn the page and move on, mate.

J



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




From aiz24 at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 27 21:32:50 2002
From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:32:50 -0000
Subject: First-Rate Chapter Endings
In-Reply-To: <F297U3K5U8cHOwf7SND00010214@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a5jja2+g374@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35826

> >Cindy (who thought there were some great chapter endings in GoF, 
but
> >isn't so sure about PS/SS and CoS)

Jake suggested:

> Well, how about this one, the end of chapter 3 of SS

Or one of my favorites, the end of chapter 9 of CoS:
  
  There was only one way to get out a book from the Restricted 
Section:  you needed a signed note of permission from a teacher.
  "Hard to see why we'd want the book, really," said Ron, "if we 
weren't going to try to make one of the potions."
  "I think," said Hermione, "that if we made it sound as though we 
were just interested in theory, we might stand a chance . . . "
  "Oh, come on, no teacher's going to fall for that," said Ron.  
"They'd have to be really thick . . . "

BTW, I agree with you completely, Cindy.  It's one of JKR's great 
strengths.  (That makes 594, if I counted correctly.)

Amy Z

----------------------------------------------------
   "This is a =girls'= bathroom," she said, eyeing
 Ron and Harry suspiciously. "=They're= not girls."
   "No," Hermione agreed.
                   -HP and the Chamber of Secrets
----------------------------------------------------





From ChaserChick at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 27 21:59:20 2002
From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:59:20 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin - How to pronounce it?
Message-ID: <F300Z3FZLvGVNvtL4wQ00003184@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35827

>From: "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at yahoo.ca>
>I was wondering. How to people prononunce Lupin?

I've always pronounced it Loop-in. Of course, I could be wrong. I said 
Hermione the wrong way until I listened to the tapes.

>I dread the thought of a movie with a different pronounciation. I

Ooh I know! In the tapes, they pronounce it "Voldemor" with a silent "t", in 
a pronunciation guide I found somewhere its "Voldemor", and in the movie it 
was "Voldemort" (with no "SH! Say You-Know-Who!"). Me very confused.

>Then again, for me Voldemort ends with a hard t.

Between the movie, the tapes, and an online pronunciation guide, I'm 
confuzzled. :\ Very confused. Cannot cope. Off to Mordor.

Liz

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




From meboriqua at aol.com  Wed Feb 27 22:05:28 2002
From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:05:28 -0000
Subject: Neville vs. the DEs, Percy challenge, the brave, FIRE, Snape, puns, sermon
In-Reply-To: <F23eVGiSu5C5JAGZ9XZ00000e02@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a5jl78+foc6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35828

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" <aiz24 at h...> wrote:
 
> How about fighting F.I.R.E. (Fudge Is *Really* Evil) with F.I.R.E. 
(Fudge, Imperio'd, Resists Entirely)?  or F.I.R.E. (Fudge Is Really 
Exemplary)?  or F.I.R.E. (Fudge Inflames Ravenclaw Educator)?  <raises 
umbrella before Jenny the Ravengeist lets loose with the water 
balloons>

*Splat!*  You have blown my cover as the secret lover of Fudge!  
Peeves and I have some planning to do tonight, Amy.  Be very afraid - 
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously, though, I think Fudge is bad, but not Death Eater Evil.  He 
is, to me, the politicians who are far more concerned with image than 
with anything of importance.  Fudge doesn't want anyone to know 
Voldemort is on the loose again because he is lazy (can you imagine 
all the work it will involve - like seeking out terrorists?) and 
because he is afraid of being seen as incompetent.  He is willing to 
bend the rules to save his own tuches (in PoA when he excuses Harry 
for doing magic at home) and to keep things quiet.  He seems to me to 
be known for his sharp dressing, not his quick thinking or brave 
decision making abilities.  I'd even venture to say that Fudge can 
easily do as much damage as the Death Eaters but I do not for one 
moment believe he is one of them.  I think he is afraid of them, but 
in denying them he is certainly helping their cause.

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




From meboriqua at aol.com  Wed Feb 27 22:15:43 2002
From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:15:43 -0000
Subject: First-Rate Chapter Endings
In-Reply-To: <a5ji10+5eqe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5jlqf+o486@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35829

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
 
> JKR writes great chapter endings, IMO.  I don't know what a creative 
> writing expert would say.  But for me, great chapter endings are 
> those that make it impossible to put the book down and go to 
> sleep.   Chapter endings that give the reader just enough 
> information to keep things interesting and raise lots of thorny 
> story questions.  Chapter endings that end in exactly the right 
> place.>

I agree with you, Cindy, but then again, I have virtually no 
criticisms of JKR.  Here are two chapter endings that stand out for me 
right away: 

In CoS when Harry wakes up and Ron is outside the window.

In GoF when Harry's name comes out of the goblet of fire.  I must say 
I was shocked even though I shouldn't have been.  When I read a book 
for the first time I am always just along for the ride.  I remember 
actually gasping out loud when I read that.

--jenny from ravenclaw, who apologizes for not adjusting the subject 
of her last post*********************************************




From mjollner at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 27 22:14:01 2002
From: mjollner at yahoo.com (mjollner)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:14:01 -0000
Subject: Sherlock/Harry, Chapter Endings
Message-ID: <a5jln9+tv0g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35830

Andrew observed about the popularity of literary characters 
occasionally haunting their creators:

> >Do you recall how hard Conan Doyle tried to kill off Holmes, after 
CD 
> >became very unhappy about the Holmes canon being his only popular 
> >work? I suspect that Rowling is trying to avoid the same fate, but 
I 
> >also think it is far too late for her to get 'out from under' HP 
and 
> >establish another character. Perhaps not; time will, after all, 
> >provide us with actual evidence.

Yes, yes!  Following your theory, then, we now know what the title 
of Book 7 will be: "Harry Potter and the Final Problem." :P  The story 
will be told from Hermione's or Ron's point of view (or perhaps both), 
in an attempt to defend Harry's heroic reputation from those remaining 
DEs who are attempting to besmirch his name, as s/he relates how 
his/her beloved friend killed Voldemort and (seemingly) himself in the 
process. 

However, this will be done in such a way that wiggle room remains for 
JKR to resurrect him a la Holmes at the Reichenbach Falls when her 
future literary efforts founder and her ravenous fans clamor for more 
additions to the Potterverse...

...and we will find out that Harry is really alive and has just been 
travelling the world, in disguise, of course, to experience life as 
someone other than The Famous Harry Potter.  It will prove to have 
been necessary for everyone to *believe* him dead so the remaining 
DEs would grow overconfident again and come out of hiding. He will 
return to England to help put away the remaining baddies, and he'll 
eventually retire to a Sussex farmhouse at a ripe old age, with or 
without Ginny/Hermione/Cho/Draco/take your pick at his side, although 
to complete the Holmes comparison, he would be alone.

cindysphynx opined:
>JKR writes great chapter endings, IMO.  I don't know what a creative 
>writing expert would say.  But for me, great chapter endings are 
>those that make it impossible to put the book down and go to 
>sleep.   

<snip>

>I think the very best HP chapter ending might be the conclusion 
>of "Cat, Rat and Dog" in PoA in the Shrieking Shack scene.

<snip>

>Cindy (who thought there were some great chapter endings in GoF, but 
>isn't so sure about PS/SS and CoS)

Gotta agree with you that ol' JKR seems to have the chapter ending 
thing down to a science.  I'll have to flip through CoS to find one 
better than the PoA chapter ending you cited...I just looked through 
PS/SS, and nothing came close for sheer "what the...?" thrills.  

In reviewing PS/SS, however, I noticed that there were a couple that I 
loved for other reasons.  For example, the ending of "Hallowe'en" or 
"Halloween" (depending on your version), after Harry and Ron had just 
knocked out the troll to save Hermione, and the three of them have 
muttered an embarrased "thanks" to each other in the Gryffindor common 
room:

"But from that moment on, Hermione Granger became their friend.  There 
are some things you can't share without ending up liking each other, 
and knocking out a twelve-foot mountain troll is one of them."  

How on earth could the Trio have a better startup than that?  You just 
know this is no ordinary friendship...

And of course, any afficionado of Big Bang's ToadKeeper corollary has 
to get all fuzzy at the end of "The Journey from Platform Nine and 
Three-Quarters," when Hagrid finds Trevor, gives him to Neville and 
checks in yet one more time that the slippery, soul-bearing amphibian 
hasn't gotten away.  This just as the first years approach the front 
door of Hogwarts, and Hagrid knocks three times.  Portentous, anyone? 
:)

Mjollner, who really, *really* must get studying for her Master's 
comps exam, which is little more than two weeks away!  yikes!  
procrastinate much?






From boggles at earthlink.net  Wed Feb 27 23:03:15 2002
From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:03:15 -0600
Subject: Pronouncing Lupin, Wizard Reproduction, AK and Immortality
In-Reply-To: <a5h5dn+nrsi@eGroups.com>
References: <a5h5dn+nrsi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <f05010403b8a30bcc45f4@[66.32.48.143]>

No: HPFGUIDX 35831

At 11:23 PM +0000 2/26/02, lucky_kari wrote:
>
>Having a good education in French, I pronounced it that way, the same
>way as an animated cartoon character of the same name :-).

Oh, _great_.  Now this subtitle snob is going to be mentally calling 
him "Lemus Rupan."  Thanks a lot.  :(

>I dread the thought of a movie with a different pronounciation. I
>already was bullied out of pronouncing "Malfoy" in accordance with its
>French roots.

So how did you pronounce it before you were bullied?


At 12:18 AM +0000 2/27/02, GulPlum wrote:
>The only French literary antecedent for "Lupin" I know is Ars?ne
>Lupin, Gentleman Burglar (have they made animated films about his
>exploits?)

There's a series of anime films about his grandson, who practices the 
same profession.  I believe that's the fellow referred to above.



At 8:12 PM -0500 2/26/02, Laura Huntley wrote:
>Why, if wizarding folk live longer (and therefore take a 
>correspondingly longer time to hit menopause), are there less 
>wizards than Muggles inhabiting the world??

Better contraceptive charms?  Practicing magic while pregnant causes 
birth defects?

Actually, I'm fond of the theory that magic has a negative effect on 
fertility.  Perhaps magical emanations reduce sperm count or 
something.  Many of the magical children appear to be only children - 
Neville, Harry, Cedric, Draco, probably Hermione.  Many of the ones 
who aren't only children are Muggleborn - the Creeveys, for example. 
The Weasleys seem to be the only really large Pureblood family that 
we know of.  Maybe a fertility charm runs in the family . . .

A third option might be that, even with the extended lifespan, 
witches hit menopause at the "normal" time.  That would make Ron and 
Ginny change-of-life babies, or something very close to them; perhaps 
that's one reson Molly seems to baby Ginny so much.



At 4:05 PM +0000 2/27/02, naamagatus wrote:
>And if AK-
>ing Harry would have brought him immortality and invincibility, why
>go through all the tedious resurrection ritual (in GoF)? He had Harry
>there. He could have simply AK-ed him, right?

Would _you_ want to be immortal as a homunculus, though?


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



From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Wed Feb 27 23:15:16 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:15:16 -0000
Subject: Fudge is Way Evil and I have the acronyms to prove it
In-Reply-To: <bf.1c1846d6.29ae9ef3@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a5jpa4+lok9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35835

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote:
> >
> > ::Pippin gives the cape a whirl, but decides it makes her look like
> > a vampire::

Dicentra jokes:
No, that would be the fangs...

> >
> > Dumbledore asks the students to do three things, in order to
> > choose what is right over what is easy.
> >
> > 1) Acknowledge that Dumbledore is telling the truth--Voldemort
> > has returned
> > 2) Set aside their old enmities and differences
> > 3) Consider themselves welcome at Hogwarts
> >
> > The three adults, Fudge, Karkaroff and Bagman, act out the
> > rejection of this message.
> >
> > 1)Fudge does not acknowledge Voldemort's return
> > 2)Karkaroff cannot set aside the differences between himself
> > and Dumbledore
> > 3)Bagman flees Hogwarts, covering up his own crimes, not
> > Voldemort's
> > So if Fudge does indeed realize that Voldemort has returned and
> > is covering up, it knocks the artistic and logical stuffing out of
> > Dumbledore's speech. There is then no one whom we can be
> > sure has heard the bad news and refused to believe it.
>
Dicentra responds:

Wow! That's a great catch! I still have to wonder about Fudge's
motives for his disbelief, though. Harry believes it's because he's
too much the politician, that he doesn't want his little paradise
disturbed. But because few Potterverse characters turn out to be what
Harry originally thinks they are, I have to anticipate some kind of
revelation later on. Not so much because I don't believe Harry's
interpretation to be valid, but because JKR likes to yank the rug out
as often as possible.

Eloise continues:
> My view of him is, incidentally the inverse of my view of Snape.
> I see Snape as a strong man who did evil very deliberately, but who
having
> realised his error made a principled decision to change sides. I see
Fudge as
> a weak man, who hasn't decided anything. he's just gone with the
flow and now
> he and potentially the rest of the wizarding world are in Big Trouble.

Dicentra replies:
I think that Big Trouble is definitely what we're in for, but as I
stated earlier, JKR rarely lets us maintain a particular impression of
a character for long.

Eloise signs off:
> Eloise, who really thinks that she has argued this thing to death
and is
> hanging up the cape and dearstalker for a bit. Anyone fancy the pipe?

Dicentra responds:
I think the cape has the tendency to disappear at this point when yes,
the poor dead horse is getting quite a beating. And I think you know
what you can do with that wretched pipe. :D

But I can't resist one more point:
As further proof of F.I.E., there's a rumor that Malcom McDowell might
be cast in that role for PoA. What more proof do you want?

http://hpgalleries.topcities.com/actors/moviegallery12.htm

--Dicentra, who takes just about anything as proof 




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 27 23:21:04 2002
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:21:04 -0000
Subject: Harry's home in Godric's Hollow, owls as pets?
In-Reply-To: <007d01c1bfa2$68a956e0$0301a8c0@Frodo>
Message-ID: <a5jpl0+3abs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35836

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Heidi Tandy" <heidit at n...> wrote:
> Lennyb wrote:
 If so, is Hagrid telling 
> > Dumbledore the house was "almost destroyed" an error? 
> I don't see this as an inconsistency, and here's why. 
 
> I'm not saying that whatever happened to the Potters' house, it was in
> any way comparable to 9/11 - I'm just saying that the precision of
> coloquial language can't be held to a perfectly exact standard - there's
> subjectivity even in determining whether something was "destroyed" or
> "almost destroyed".

I think we can assume, despite the vaguaries of language, that however great the destruction was it wasn't complete, 
or it's doubtful that a 15-month-old baby would have survived it completely unscathed as he is when being delivered 
to the Durselys.  Also, since I doubt that Hagrid arrived the second Voldemort died and the house collapsed, the ruins 
would have had to provide some shelter from the elements.  We don't know exactly where Godric's Hollow is supposed 
to be apart from the fact that Hagrid flew over Bristol to get from there to Surrey, but wherever it is it would have 
been very cold in the middle of the night at the end of October - a baby might freeze to death if left outside in that 
kind of cold for too long.

Abigail





From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Feb 27 23:42:15 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:42:15 -0000
Subject: Neville vs. the DEs, Percy challenge, the brave, FIRE, Snape, puns, sermon
In-Reply-To: <F23eVGiSu5C5JAGZ9XZ00000e02@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a5jqsn+1ua0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35837

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" <aiz24 at h...> wrote:

> Seriously, if the Crouch Junior Gang had tortured Neville, wouldn't 
we have 
> heard about it?  There's Crouch Sr., ranting about how this is the 
most 
> heinous crime they've seen, and dying to send them all to Azkaban to 
rot, 
> and he neglects to mention the most heinous thing they've done?

A hit, a hit. I do confess it. Neville was not tortured, it seems. All 
right, I'll retreat to fourth man Avery with remorse interfering and 
protecting Neville. :-)


> Here's a challenge to Percy-lovers (like Penny doesn't have enough 
to do): 
> compile a list of *positive* Percy moments.  I like Percy against 
all 
> reason, but the more I reread, the more evident it is that JKR 
doesn't like 
> him and doesn't intend her readers to.  The thing I like least about 
Percy 
> is, in fact, that he's very cartoonishly written.  Not as bad as 
Lockhart, 
> but up there.  He bustles, he says things pompously, he looks 
smug--almost 
> every time we see him he's given a negative valuation.

I had made a large list, then the computer crashed. So, then I 
wandered about the web to see if anyone agreed with me, and spent the 
next half hour reading excerpts from Percy angst fan-fics that had me 
laughing so hard I began to cry. And then once you've started crying 
you start really to cry. And then you start laughing at yourself. But, 
heaven help us, these fanfic writers really want to load Percy with 
problems, don't they?

A few positive Percy moments.

1. "A genius, but mad yes." A certified joke.
2. The bet with Penny. More a Fred and George thing, if you think 
about it.
3. Rushing off to fight that mob in GoF and coming back with the 
bloodied nose.
4. Concern for Ginny in CoS.
5. His reaction after Penny is petrified.
6. His boasting of Ron at the end of SS/PS.
7. Rushing out to Ron at the end of the Second Task.

These are the ones that spring to mind, but as I mentioned, I lost my 
complete list with commentary, and all this Percy angst has befuddled 
me. 

Eileen, off to find a non-angsty Percy fanfic




From moongirlk at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 27 23:48:54 2002
From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:48:54 -0000
Subject: The Big Bangers and Neville
In-Reply-To: <a5dtuf+n5me@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5jr96+q5fd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35838

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at h...> wrote:
> > > So I issue a challenge. Something Big must be going on with 
> > > Neville. Surely he isn't going to spend seven books as a timid, 
> > > forgetful boy chasing after a useless toad. What is Neville's 
> > > backstory, then? Any takers?
> 
> I'd like to think my Neville Reverse Memory Charm Rope-A-Dope has 
> fended off Elkins' rather vigorous assault. But I must point out 
> that I *still* haven't heard an alternative backstory explanation 
of 
> what is going on with Neville and Trevor.  
> 
> The challenge still stands.  ::looks around the room hopefully::

::Kimberly scratches her head and ponders for a moment...::

How about this for a Neville back story:

Neville was born to Frank and Somebody (Florence?) Longbottom, 
shortly before the fall of a Very Evil Wizard.  His father, and 
possibly his mother, were actively involved in fighting said evil 
wizard, but had nothing to do with his actual defeat or 
disappearance.  Some of the followers of the evil wizard, however, 
were not convinced of this fact, and believed they might have 
information as to his wearabouts.  They came to the Longbottom home 
(here I'll give the bangers the benefit of the doubt that Neville was 
not off on an outing with Gran at the time, but witnessed the 
attacks, whatever his age) and tortured Frank and Mrs. Longbottom, 
never arriving at the desired result, but probably enjoying it 
anyway, until they went completely and irrevocably mad.

Little Neville's parents were destroyed mentally and emotionally and 
carted off to St. Mungo's, and Neville spent the rest of his 
childhood with a stern, if loving, elderly woman and a crazy uncle 
who occasionally tossed him into the ocean and out windows in hopes 
of squeezing a little magic out of him, as he was feared to be (oh 
the shame!) a squib.

Finally one of these desperate attempts succeeded in proving that 
Neville does, in fact, have enough magic in him to keep from dying 
when tossed out of a window, only slightly encouraging his family, 
who were still a little disappointed that he wasn't more powerful.

Enter the Hogwarts letter, which apparently garners a sigh of relief 
from his family, enough that Uncle Child Endangerment (can't remember 
his real name at the moment) buys him a toad, the lowliest of all 
possible pets according to Ron, who should know whereof he speaks, 
considering Scabbers and Errol.  Nevertheless, this is the first time 
Neville has been entrusted with such a responsibility, and he is 
proud and determined to take good care of Trevor, in order to prove 
that he's capable (as he has the impression nobody thinks he is).  
Once at Hogwarts, Neville proves to have nearly as little talent as 
his family feared, although he excels to some extent at Herbology.  
He is still forgetful and clumsy, but begins to gain some specks of 
self-esteem as time goes by.  

::Kimberly smiles, completely satisfied with her back-story, until 
she notices the disappointed faces of her audience, and her smile 
fades::

What?  What's wrong with that?  Surely being the worse-than-orphaned 
child of madpersons who were tortured needlessly by evil dark wizards 
and spending the rest of his childhood trying not to die when his 
uncle tries to force magic out of him is a pretty good Bang.  I think 
it's as good of a bang as Harry's story.  Why is he forgetful and 
clumsy?  Well, he's traumatized by the situation of his parents, he 
(depending on the timeline) may actually have some memory of the 
incident that put them in an institution and, quite frankly, he may 
well have been dropped on his head a few times.  He's been 
overprotected and a bit dominated by his grandmother because of his 
situation and has the added pressure of knowing that it's a Big Deal 
to his family that he's not much of a wizard (really terribly 
embarrassing, after all).  He tends to criticize himself quite 
openly, leading me to believe that he's heard himself talked of in 
the same terms regularly growing up.  He has little confidence, and a 
great fear of dark wizards, percieved and real.  Seems like a 
reasonable result of his life thus far.  He's also begun, slowly, to 
improve, and I think he will continue to do so.  I don't see any need 
for a memory charm or a reverse memory charm or any kind of charm at 
all to explain his forgetfulness, his attachment to his toad, or 
anything else about him.  I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I 
don't see any reason for it, and it wouldn't add anything to the 
story for me.  As for Toadkeeper... I can't work up the energy to 
oppose it, per se, but let's just say I doubt it.

Very few theories so far appeal to me, so maybe it's just me.  I was 
ready to go with the one about Snape showing up in the foe glass 
because he is his own worst enemy until somebody pointed out that it 
shows the enemies of the owner, not whoever's looking into it.
I am still totally behind those who insist that Snape is not a 
vampire, but that's an anti-theory, not a theory.  I'm not sure what 
that means about me.  I examine and pass by theories left and right, 
and can't seem to pick any that I *really* like.  I guess so far I 
mostly go with A.N.T.I.T.H.E.S.I.S. (All Nice Theories, I Think. 
However Each Supposition Is Strained).  So far George and Diana are 
the only theories I can really get excited about, and even then I'm 
divided, since I'd like a *little* bang to go with it.

kimberly
apparently still afraid of commitment




From karen at infobreak.net  Thu Feb 28 00:13:36 2002
From: karen at infobreak.net (sirius_kase)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:13:36 -0000
Subject: Telling Harry + Amos Diggory & Harry
In-Reply-To: <20020227192436.31966.qmail@web14203.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a5jsng+a5fn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35839

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kelly Hurt <klhurt at y...> wrote:
> --- cindysphynx wrote:
> 
> >I think Amos will manifest his grief
> >by stirring up trouble for Harry at
> >MoM.
> 
> I've been wondering if, instead of a Dursley summer interlude 
in OoP,
> that we might see Harry on trial?  This would fulfill JKR's 
promise
> that Harry would go somewhere we've heard of but not been:  
the MoM
> and, possibly, Azkaban.
> 
> If not an actual trial, perhaps Harry will be ordered to undergo 
the
> wizarding version of a psych exam?  This could take him to St. 
Mungo's
> where he could meet the Longbottoms & see Lockhart again 
(something
> else JKR promised).
> 
> Kelly the Yarn Junkie (whose GONERs list keeps growing)

Hey Kelly, what's a GONER?

I agree that Harry is going somewhere that we'd rather he didn't.  
I'm expecting St. Mungo's.  The foreshadowing all points that 
way.  Fudge thinks Harry is crazy, not bad.  Rita's articles portray 
him as crazy not bad.  Even Snape knows that for Harry, Azkaban 
would be a death sentence, unless he could get his Patronis to 
look after him 24 hours a day.  Why else would Jo have had 
Dumbledore tell Harry (and us) about Neville's parents and 
Malfoy's charitable contributions?  Also, he could be more easilty 
committed to St. Mungo's without a public hearing and Fudge 
could portray himself as being looking out for Harry's best 
interests by having him undergo treatment.  Harry is too popular 
for Fudge to do something like get him off to prison.  Especially 
with a popular wizard like Dumbledore sticking up for him.  My 
number two theory on who is going to St. Mungos is Dumbledore 
for allowing Harry to get away with so much and allowing Harry to 
put himself in harms way by not properly disciplining, etc, etc.





From jbryson at richmond.infi.net  Thu Feb 28 00:47:57 2002
From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:47:57 -0000
Subject: Sirius' Wand
In-Reply-To: <20020227165201.93977.qmail@web21301.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a5junt+lqv7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35840

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Adhara Black <adhara_black at y...> wrote:
> 
> Jennifer wrote:
> What happened to Sirius's wand?  Fudge and the other
> MOM wizards took it (can't let a prisoner have a
> weapon) and kept it as evidence.  
> 
How did Sirius get it back? He had it in the S-Shack. He was going to 
use it to kill PP.  For that matter, what happened to the motorcycle?
Could the wand be with the bike? Hagrid said in SS/PS (1) that he 
was returning the bike to Black. Could it be that Hagrid kept the
bike and the wand?

Tex





From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Wed Feb 27 23:29:14 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:29:14 -0000
Subject: Harry's home in Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <a5jpl0+3abs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5jq4a+omlb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35841

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "abigailnus" <abigailnus at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Heidi Tandy" <heidit at n...> wrote:
> > Lennyb wrote:
>  If so, is Hagrid telling 
> > > Dumbledore the house was "almost destroyed" an error? 
> > I don't see this as an inconsistency, and here's why. 
>  
> > I'm not saying that whatever happened to the Potters' house, it was in
> > any way comparable to 9/11 - I'm just saying that the precision of
> > coloquial language can't be held to a perfectly exact standard -
there's
> > subjectivity even in determining whether something was "destroyed" or
> > "almost destroyed".
> 
> I think we can assume, despite the vaguaries of language, that
however great the destruction was it wasn't complete, 
> or it's doubtful that a 15-month-old baby would have survived it
completely unscathed as he is when being delivered 
> to the Durselys.  Also, since I doubt that Hagrid arrived the second
Voldemort died and the house collapsed, the ruins 
> would have had to provide some shelter from the elements.  We don't
know exactly where Godric's Hollow is supposed 
> to be apart from the fact that Hagrid flew over Bristol to get from
there to Surrey, but wherever it is it would have 
> been very cold in the middle of the night at the end of October - a
baby might freeze to death if left outside in that 
> kind of cold for too long.
>
Dicentra muses:
Of course, if the failed AK produced a forceful enough explosion, the
house would have blown out away from Harry in all directions. I
imagine seeing Harry sitting in his crib, ruins scattered around him
like the walls of a crater. That could explain how the house could go
down without hurting him. 

As for the cold, babies, especially wizard babies, can stand up to the
cold rather well.  Didn't a two-year-old in Canada survive being
frozen nearly solid this winter?

--Dicentra, who wonders if Voldemort's body was found next to Lily's,
and if not, how did folks know he had been defeated?






From rshuson80 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 28 00:04:28 2002
From: rshuson80 at yahoo.com (nyarth_meow)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:04:28 -0000
Subject: Neville vs. the DEs
In-Reply-To: <F23eVGiSu5C5JAGZ9XZ00000e02@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a5js6c+691e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35842

> 
> Seriously, if the Crouch Junior Gang had tortured Neville, wouldn't 
we have 
> heard about it?  There's Crouch Sr., ranting about how this is the 
most 
> heinous crime they've seen, and dying to send them all to Azkaban 
to rot, 
> and he neglects to mention the most heinous thing they've done?
> 

Maybe Snape's behaviour towards Neville has some bearing on this?  
Snape knew Crouch jnr well enough to call him "Barty" when he 
recognised him in GoF, and Crouch/Moody knew Snape well enough to 
threaten him successfully.  Maybe Snape somehow protected the 
diminutive Longbottom from harm, and now treats him so badly because 
he feels horribly guilty about his parents? Or perhaps to maintain 
his cover in the event of Voldemort's return.

-Nyarth





From pennylin at swbell.net  Thu Feb 28 03:25:27 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:25:27 -0600
Subject: Percy!
Message-ID: <3C7DA327.8020300@swbell.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35843

Hi all --

Amy Z threw down the gauntlet:

> Here's a challenge to Percy-lovers (like Penny doesn't have enough to do):
> compile a list of *positive* Percy moments.  I like Percy against all
> reason, but the more I reread, the more evident it is that JKR doesn't like
> him and doesn't intend her readers to.  The thing I like least about Percy
> is, in fact, that he's very cartoonishly written.  Not as bad as Lockhart,
> but up there.  He bustles, he says things pompously, he looks smug--almost
> every time we see him he's given a negative valuation.

Thought I wasn't paying attention, huh?  Huh?  Okay ...fine.  :--)

First let me just say that if we're not supposed to like Percy, then we 
are likewise not supposed to like Molly.  Percy is Molly re-made IMHO. 
But, putting aside familial similarities for the moment, sure, I can 
compile a nice list of Percy positives.  I see Eileen has already given 
it a good start:

> A few positive Percy moments.
> 
> 1. "A genius, but mad yes." A certified joke.
> 2. The bet with Penny. More a Fred and George thing, if you think
> about it.
> 3. Rushing off to fight that mob in GoF and coming back with the
> bloodied nose.
> 4. Concern for Ginny in CoS.
> 5. His reaction after Penny is petrified.
> 6. His boasting of Ron at the end of SS/PS.
> 7. Rushing out to Ron at the end of the Second Task.

I would add:

8.  Tailing Harry in CoS (yes, it irritates Harry ... but Percy's heart 
is in the right place)

9.  Grief-stricken when Ginny is taken to the Chamber (yes, I realize 
others put a negative spin on this, but I've always maintained that 
everyone is entitled to handle sadness, despair, crisis & the like in 
the way that most suits them).

I haven't time to actually do a comb-through of all the books at the 
moment.  But, I'll add that to my "to do" list when I comb through the 
books to make a list of all the inter-Trio interactions (you know, to 
catalogue all that witty banter that Ron & Hermione are exchanging all 
the time -- <snerk>).

I do think that all these Positive Percy Polaroids do present an overall 
picture that JKR is conveying Percy is a good person under the officious 
& ambitious exterior he presents to the world.  I think she paints his 
negatives in broad brushstrokes to throw us off-bait; his positive 
moments are generally subtle.  But, I believe that JKR does want us to 
know that there's a kind and gentle Percy lurking in there.  I truly 
don't see that she's trying to convey that Percy is to be disliked as a 
character.  I think that as with other characters 
(:::cough:::Ron:::cough) she is pointing up some of his failings and 
flaws that may be problematic for him on down the road.  :--)

Penny

 






From brewpub44 at earthlink.net  Thu Feb 28 03:43:09 2002
From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:43:09 -0000
Subject: Other Wizarding Schools in future books
In-Reply-To: <D85ECB9722B6D311BFFB00805FC1BC3701212F88@hma.satyam.com>
Message-ID: <a5k90d+6l0c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35844

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Gautam_Ghosh <gautam_ghosh at s...> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I am a newbie from India and tentatively writing my first mail to 
this
> group.
> 
> I would like to ask your opinion as to how do you think the other 
wizarding
> schools will affect the overall story in the forthcoming books?
> 
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Regards,
> Gautam
> 
> 

Welcome!

I think they will definitely be in there. Dumbledore eludes to this 
at the end of GOF, I don't remember the exact quotes but he does say 
that everyone is in this together, and they must be united. So he 
sends various people on "quests" to gain allies. So yeah, the 
conflict becomes more global and the other schools will be involved.

Plus, the rumor mill has it that the auther is planning to send 
Harry "where he has never been before." There is a lot of speculation 
on what that means, so perhaps it's another school or some other part 
of hte world.

A Barkeep in Diagon Alley




From elfundeb at aol.com  Thu Feb 28 03:50:27 2002
From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:50:27 -0000
Subject: Percy challenge, the brave, FIRE, Snape, puns, sermon
In-Reply-To: <a5jqsn+1ua0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5k9e3+lbc3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35845

> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" <aiz24 at h...> wrote:> 
> 
> > Here's a challenge to Percy-lovers (like Penny doesn't have 
enough 
> to do): 
> > compile a list of *positive* Percy moments.  I like Percy against 
> all 
> > reason, but the more I reread, the more evident it is that JKR 
> doesn't like 
> > him and doesn't intend her readers to.  The thing I like least 
about 
> Percy 
> > is, in fact, that he's very cartoonishly written.  Not as bad as 
> Lockhart, 
> > but up there.  He bustles, he says things pompously, he looks 
> smug--almost 
> > every time we see him he's given a negative valuation.
> 
Eileen's list:
> 
> A few positive Percy moments.
> 
> 1. "A genius, but mad yes." A certified joke.
> 2. The bet with Penny. More a Fred and George thing, if you think 
> about it.
> 3. Rushing off to fight that mob in GoF and coming back with the 
> bloodied nose.
> 4. Concern for Ginny in CoS.
> 5. His reaction after Penny is petrified.
> 6. His boasting of Ron at the end of SS/PS.
> 7. Rushing out to Ron at the end of the Second Task.
> 
I'd like to add the scene in CoS where Percy walks into the Great 
Hall just as Ginny is about to confess. Ron gets on his case for 
scaring Ginny away, but Percy thinks Ginny was going to spill the 
beans on him and Penelope and gets all tongue-tied and 
uncomfortable.  The implications are so un-Percy-like: Our rule-
enforcer is so smitten with a girl that he sneaks off at night to 
engage in behaviour unbecoming to a prefect, and then gets embarassed 
about it.  (I don't know if sneaking off to a classroom at night to 
make out was against the rules or not.  I thought so at the time, but 
now I'm not so sure, notwithstanding Snape blasting couples out of 
the rosebushes.)

And a response to Amy's general comment that JKR portrays Percy 
cartoonishly.  He does seem cartoonish at times, but he's been cast 
in the role of straight man in opposition to the twins' over the top 
humor (which is also very cartoonish, not to mention downright mean 
at times).  Although I think the pomposity he employs in carrying out 
his responsibilities (whether as prefect, Head Boy, Crouch's 
assistant, or cauldron-bottom analyst) are a bit overdone, there are 
all those actions on Eileen's list to humanize him.  

Perhaps the real challenge would be to put together a list of 
positive things Fred and George have done, besides giving Harry the 
Marauders Map which, I hasten to add, was given to Harry only so he 
could engage in blatant rule-breaking for no purpose other than 
personal pleasure.

Debbie, who can't figure out how her one-sentence response turned 
into a three-paragraph post




From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Thu Feb 28 03:56:01 2002
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (davehoz)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:56:01 -0000
Subject: Sirius' Wand
In-Reply-To: <a5junt+lqv7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5k9oh+jb5o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35846

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" <jbryson at r...> wrote:
> How did Sirius get it back? He had it in the S-Shack. He was going 
to 
> use it to kill PP.  

Um... Isn't that *Ron's* wand he's got?

> For that matter, what happened to the motorcycle?

More problematic... Maybe the Department for the Misuse
of Muggle Artifacts confiscated it...

--
Dave






From jklb66 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 28 04:20:09 2002
From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 04:20:09 -0000
Subject: Sirius' Wand
In-Reply-To: <a5junt+lqv7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5kb5p+rdqo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35847

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" <jbryson at r...> wrote:

> > 
> How did Sirius get it [his wand] back? He had it in the S-Shack. He 
was going to 
> use it to kill PP.> 
> Tex

No, when Harry & Hermione first enter the shreiking shack, Sirius has 
Ron's wand.  After Snape gets knocked unconcious, Sirius uses Snape's 
wand.




From boggles at earthlink.net  Thu Feb 28 04:26:14 2002
From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:26:14 -0600
Subject: Sirius's Motorcycle
In-Reply-To: <a5k9oh+jb5o@eGroups.com>
References: <a5k9oh+jb5o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <f05010402b8a360a33506@[66.32.51.166]>

No: HPFGUIDX 35848

At 3:56 AM +0000 2/28/02, davehoz wrote:
>
>>  For that matter, what happened to the motorcycle?
>
>More problematic... Maybe the Department for the Misuse
>of Muggle Artifacts confiscated it...

Perhaps.  And maybe Arthur Weasley ot his hands on it, took it apart, 
and used its components to refurbish a Ford Anglia.  (*eyebrow 
waggle*)

What is the fascination with flying vehicles?  The Anglia, the 
motorcycle, the Beauxbatons carriage . . . I'm half suprised the 
Durmstrang longship and the Hogwarts Express haven't taken to the air 
at some point.  And why are all these allowed (well, the Anglia isn't 
really, but presumably the others are) and the flying carpets 
disallowed?  Wizarding law seems oddly confused on the subject of 
identifiable flying objects.

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



From aiz24 at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 28 04:43:36 2002
From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 04:43:36 -0000
Subject: Percy!
In-Reply-To: <3C7DA327.8020300@swbell.net>
Message-ID: <a5kcho+9a6m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35849

Penny picked up the gauntlet:

> First let me just say that if we're not supposed to like Percy, then 
we 
> are likewise not supposed to like Molly.  Percy is Molly re-made 
IMHO. 

<nine positive Percy moments compiled by Eileen and Penny snipped>

I agree that all of them are genuinely positive (those who think Percy 
isn't grief-stricken by Ginny's kidnapping should reconsider any plans 
for a career in grief counseling).  But Percy is like Molly?!  Yes, 
she dotes on him, and yes, he's like her in various ways.  But in 
terms of the positive-to-negative ratio of their descriptions, they 
aren't remotely comparable.

I really didn't phrase my request correctly.  The real task is not to 
list positive Percy moments, but to list *all* Percy moments and 
categorize them as positive, negative, or neutral so we can get a 
count <g>.  I haven't done this compilation myself, but my sense as I 
read is that the vast majority of descriptions of Percy are negative. 
 That's where he differs from Molly, and from Ron (though those who 
cower at angry parents may have a much higher negative count for Molly 
than I do, and those who dislike a sarcastic sense of humor may have a 
much higher negative count for Ron).

I agree with this:

> But, I believe that JKR does want us to 
> know that there's a kind and gentle Percy lurking in there.  

but not with this:

>I truly 
> don't see that she's trying to convey that Percy is to be disliked 
as a 
> character.  

I wish this were true, but how many readers would like someone like 
Percy if they knew him in person?  (Not I, so why do I have so much 
affection for him as a character?  Am I just perverse?  Or is it a 
chilling recognition that there but for the grace of God and a more 
secure sense of self go I?)

Amy Z

-----------------------------------------
 "This is the weirdest thing we've ever
 done," Harry said fervently.
        --HP and the Prisoner of Azkaban
-----------------------------------------




From abced99 at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 28 04:10:20 2002
From: abced99 at hotmail.com (abced99420)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 04:10:20 -0000
Subject: Mountains=the "new place" ?
Message-ID: <a5kajc+730l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35850

Hi!
I've lately been attempting to plot out what I think will happen in 
the whole of book 5, to stave off despair of it will actually ever be 
published. Anyway, I am of the opinion that Hagrid will be the one 
to die, and I figure that if JKR is going to kill off one of her 
personal favorite characters, she will most likely give him some 
major "screen time" first. What better way to do that than give 
Hagrid his own major subplot with the giants, in the mountains? 
What I haven't figured out yet is a plausible time and reason for 
Harry to go to the mountains with him? Does anyone have any 
ideas about this? I think that "giant land" would be a very 
interesting place to see!
cheers,
abced99





From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Thu Feb 28 02:31:07 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:31:07 -0000
Subject: Old Fiends (filk)
Message-ID: <a5k4pb+obd8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35851

Old Fiends

(to the tune of Old Friends, from Sondheim's Merrily We Roll Along)

Dedicated to Dicentra

Hear a MIDI at

http://www.broadwaymidi.com/shows/merrily_we_roll_along.html

THE SCENE: Town Square of Tirana, Albania, after midnight. Enter 
HARRY, and from the opposite direction, LORD VOLDEMORT

HARRY
Hey, old fiend
Do you decay, old fiend?

VOLDEMORT
Dare disobey, young fiend?

HARRY
Are you a thorough antique?

VOLDEMORT
With allies
Everything started changing
As we vie
I'll beat you out by a squeak

BOTH
Most fiends fade
Or seem to just degrade
As they get overplayed
And soon we're saying "Adieu"

HARRY
But this old fiend
Has razzmatazz, they've gleaned

BOTH
So they says ? so we says
(to each other) Damn you!

HARRY
Hey, old fiend?
How do you stop old fiends?
We've got to slay old fiends,
For these old fiends shan't survive


VOLDEMORT
One day Mum's
Being your latest victim;
You're struck dumb
Almost losing your life
.

BOTH
Old fiends swore
That Albus Dumbledore 
Would soon for peace implore
And that proved to be untrue
But these old fiends
We've razzmatazz, they've gleaned
So they says ? so we says



Most fiends wilt
Or they succumb to guilt
Once all their beans are spilt
And so they're swiftly subdued

HARRY
But you, old fiend
Like Screwtape, you're still mean 

BOTH
Here's to us!
Who's like us?
(to each other) Damn you!

  - CMC

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





From reepicheepuk at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Feb 28 09:18:15 2002
From: reepicheepuk at yahoo.co.uk (reepicheepuk)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:18:15 -0000
Subject: Mountains=the "new place" ?
In-Reply-To: <a5kajc+730l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5kskn+pkj5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35852

abced99420 wrote:

> I've lately been attempting to plot out what I think will happen in 
> the whole of book 5, to stave off despair of it will actually ever 
be 
> published. Anyway, I am of the opinion that Hagrid will be the one 
> to die, and I figure that if JKR is going to kill off one of her 
> personal favorite characters, she will most likely give him some 
> major "screen time" first. What better way to do that than give 
> Hagrid his own major subplot with the giants, in the mountains? 
> What I haven't figured out yet is a plausible time and reason for 
> Harry to go to the mountains with him? Does anyone have any 
> ideas about this? I think that "giant land" would be a very 
> interesting place to see!

Well, even IF we take for granted SOMEONE's going to die, I don't see 
why you assume it's going to be Hagrid. You would need to be more 
specific about that. (Of course, I don't like the idea of him dying, 
that's obvious.) If GoF is anything to go on, I feel it more likely 
that some minor character is going to be the victim, anyway. After 
all, Cedric, on second thoughts, seems to have been invented for the 
only pupose to get killed off. Anyway, if it was book 7 we're talking 
about, it would seem more likely that some of the major characters 
are in for it, but definitely not book 5.
However, I fully agree with you that "Giant Land" would be an 
interesting place to see. 

Greetings,

reepicheep





From Ali at zymurgy.org  Thu Feb 28 11:57:50 2002
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:57:50 -0000
Subject: Telling Harry + Amos Diggory & Harry
In-Reply-To: <a5jsng+a5fn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5l5vu+vi50@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35853

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sirius_kase" <karen at i...> wrote:
snip 
> I agree that Harry is going somewhere that we'd rather he didn't.  
> I'm expecting St. Mungo's.  The foreshadowing all points that 
> way.  Fudge thinks Harry is crazy, not bad.  Rita's articles 
portray 
> him as crazy not bad.  Even Snape knows that for Harry, Azkaban 
> would be a death sentence, unless he could get his Patronis to 
> look after him 24 hours a day.  Why else would Jo have had 
> Dumbledore tell Harry (and us) about Neville's parents and 
> Malfoy's charitable contributions?  Also, he could be more easilty 
> committed to St. Mungo's without a public hearing and Fudge 
> could portray himself as being looking out for Harry's best 
> interests by having him undergo treatment.  Harry is too popular 
> for Fudge to do something like get him off to prison.  Especially 
> with a popular wizard like Dumbledore sticking up for him.  My 
> number two theory on who is going to St. Mungos is Dumbledore 
> for allowing Harry to get away with so much and allowing Harry to 
> put himself in harms way by not properly disciplining, etc, etc.

I can imagine Harry being sent to St Mungo's - but I do wonder if JKR 
will really explore mental illness in the Potterverse. Ok, so we know 
that Harry isn't ill, but he would have to be treated as though he 
is. There is still such stigma attached to mental illness (in the UK 
at least). If she can do it, and open it up as a discussion subject 
in a "children's" book, then I guess many would be grateful to her. 

I suppose that she could just do it as a humorous interlude. But how 
would Harry's Aunt & Uncle treat him if they knew that he was 
considered to be crazy by the wizarding community - would they still 
have him back? I also wonder if Harry is still really popular - Rita 
Skeeter's poison pen seems to have worked against him at Hogwarts 
(kids avoiding him in the corridors etc) might this also be true in 
the wizarding community as a whole. Adulation can quickly turn to 
hate, or distrust at the very least - especially when given a helping 
hand by the likes of Rita Skeeter.

I will certainly be surprised if Fudge & the establishment do leave 
Harry alone, and St Mungos has been introduced to us, so maybe...

Ali




From Edblanning at aol.com  Thu Feb 28 12:08:01 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:08:01 EST
Subject: Snape and the philosophy of virtue
Message-ID: <10d.e2acbd3.29af77a1@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35854

Anyone who has been involved in, or has been interested in our discussions of 
Snape and how he came to change sides might be interested to listen to a 
discussion broadcast on BBC Radio 4 this morning on the nature of and 
motivation for virtuous behaviour.

Touches on ideas from Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, Hume, Hobbs, Darwin, 
Nietsche, Kant, Utilitarian movement.
Quite a bit about the Aristotelian idea that one learns to be virtuous 
through habituation. It is a learning process and  the person who has fully 
internalised these ideals gains happiness whereas someone who's still in 
training, as it were, who is trying to emulate virtuous behaviour but hasn't 
fully internalised it won't yet find contentment in a virtuous lifestyle. 
(Sounds rather like someone we know, doesn't it?)
Kant: Passions and sentiments have no moral value, but the 'numinal' self 
allows us to act freely, rationally and morally. A fundamental tension 
between determinism and freedom. The 'Categorical Imperitive' : you must act 
only on principles that any rational being would act upon in the same 
situation - like the golden rule. 
'Duty for duty's sake'  is the only thing that has moral worth. Doing 
something kind simply because you *want* to carries no  distinctive moral 
value.
Contrast with Aristotle. For Aristotle, the best kind of person is the moral 
saint, who has the right sentiments and passions and enjoys doing the right 
thing, whereas for Kant, the moral hero is the person who's really tempted to 
do something nasty but manages to resist because its their duty.( Again, 
familiar, no?) It is easiest to isolate the idea of moral worth in a 
situation where the agent has a sense of conflict.

Anyone who wants to hear the whole discussion, its on line for one week only, 
at
www,bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml
On the alphabetical index, click on 'In Our Time'
(There's the end of a news broadcast at the beginning, don't think that it's 
the wrong programme)

Eloise


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




From itachimusume at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 28 11:59:49 2002
From: itachimusume at yahoo.com (itachimusume)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:59:49 -0000
Subject: Sirius' Wand
In-Reply-To: <a5junt+lqv7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5l63l+akl7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35855

> > Jennifer wrote:
> > What happened to Sirius's wand?  Fudge and the other
> > MOM wizards took it (can't let a prisoner have a
> > weapon) and kept it as evidence.  
> > 

Isn't it more likely that Sirius's wand was broken before they sent 
him to prison?  If they broke wands just for being expelled from 
school, then they really should snap them for murder.

> How did Sirius get it back? He had it in the S-Shack. He was 
going to 
> use it to kill PP.  For that matter,

It was Ron's wand.  Then Snapes'

 what happened to the motorcycle?

well, he did lend the bike to Hagrid.  And then he was thrown in 
prison.  I don't think that Big H managed to return the bike to 
sirius before they caught him and put him in prison.  So most 
likely, Big H still has that bike in one of his pockets.  Hee hee, 
maybe once Big H realizes that Sirius is a good guy, he'll return it 
to him.


Seiko



> Could the wand be with the bike? Hagrid said in SS/PS (1) that 
he 
> was returning the bike to Black. Could it be that Hagrid kept the
> bike and the wand?
> 
> Tex





From Edblanning at aol.com  Thu Feb 28 12:16:24 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:16:24 EST
Subject: Identifiable flying object (was: Sirius's Motorcycle)
Message-ID: <12f.d2fb0db.29af7998@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35856

Dave
>
>>  For that matter, what happened to the motorcycle?
>
>More problematic... Maybe the Department for the Misuse
>of Muggle Artifacts confiscated it...

Boggles replies

Perhaps.  And maybe Arthur Weasley ot his hands on it, took it apart, 

> and used its components to refurbish a Ford Anglia.  (*eyebrow 
> waggle*)
> 
> What is the fascination with flying vehicles?  The Anglia, the 
> motorcycle, the Beauxbatons carriage . . . I'm half suprised the 
> Durmstrang longship and the Hogwarts Express haven't taken to the air 
> at some point.  And why are all these allowed (well, the Anglia isn't 
> really, but presumably the others are) and the flying carpets 
> disallowed?  Wizarding law seems oddly confused on the subject of 
> identifiable flying objects.
> 
> 
Eloise:

Didn't Arthur Weasley frame the act? Therefore it's relatively new and 
Sirius' motor cycle may predate it. Hagrid had it last ( I've always wondered 
how he managed to sit on it. Perhaps he used an engorgement charm). I suspect 
he discarded it in disgust on hearing of Sirius' supposed treachery. I have a 
vision of it trundling round the Forbidden Forest, where of course, it has 
now met the Flying Ford Anglia and is bringing up a little family of motor 
bikes with sidecars.

The Beauxbatons carriage couldn't be mistaken for a muggle artefact, which is 
the basis of the law. You see, lots of us have oriental style carpets, but 
not so many of us have witch-type broomsticks. I do, as it happens, but it 
has shown no inclination to take off as yet. Again, I think the flying carpet 
law is recent. Someone (?Crouch) mentions having had one in the past. Banning 
broomsticks would cause a major incident. However,  there is definitely some 
cultural bias here. Does the wizarding community outside Europe and North 
America use broomsticks? Institutionalised racism in the MOM, I'm afraid.

My thoughts on broomsticks are far more prosaic, more to do with the 'ouch' 
factor. I mean, sitting on one...even if you can balance on it....well, isn't 
it just painful?

Eloise, who has a tendency towards vertigo, doesn't like speed, has enough 
trouble with horses, even of the non-flying variety and  certainly wouldn't 
dream of trying a broomstick or a carpet. Far too scary.



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




From aiz24 at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 28 13:22:01 2002
From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:22:01 -0000
Subject: Identifiable flying object 
In-Reply-To: <12f.d2fb0db.29af7998@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a5latp+iee3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35857

Eloise wrote:

> The Beauxbatons carriage couldn't be mistaken for a muggle artefact, 
which is 
> the basis of the law. You see, lots of us have oriental style 
carpets, but 
> not so many of us have witch-type broomsticks. 

I've wondered about this.  The movie and the illustrations in 
Quidditch Through the Ages indicate an old-fashioned broom--round, 
made of twigs.  The books also talk about twigs rather than straw.  
This would seem to make modern brooms rather conspicuous.  However, 
the original reason for using brooms, according to QTTA, was precisely 
that they *were* everyday objects.  That way one could have them in 
the house without arousing the suspicions of one's Muggle neighbors.

Perhaps the newer laws reflect the change in Muggle-wizard relations 
over the centuries.  Where the WW's most important consideration used 
to be concealing themselves from the Muggles, who were apt to tie them 
to stakes, (however fruitlessly), it is now more important to protect 
Muggles from wayward enchanted objects.

> My thoughts on broomsticks are far more prosaic, more to do with the 
'ouch' 
> factor. I mean, sitting on one...even if you can balance on 
it....well, isn't 
> it just painful?

Again, check out QTTA, where the magic of Cushioning Charms is 
explained.

Amy Z

-----------------------------------------------------
 Those who have been stung by a Billywig suffer 
 giddiness followed by levitation.  Generations of 
 young Australian witches and wizards have attempted 
 to catch Billywigs and provoke them into stinging 
 in order to enjoy these side effects . . . 
           -Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
-----------------------------------------------------




From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Thu Feb 28 13:22:07 2002
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:22:07 -0000
Subject: A Percy moment
In-Reply-To: <F23eVGiSu5C5JAGZ9XZ00000e02@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a5latv+97mm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35858

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" <aiz24 at h...> wrote:

> If someone already said this, here <presents fingers to be stuffed 
in 
> toaster>.  I've been away and can't catch up.

Me too - lots of time offline composing silly fairy tales, less online

> Here's a challenge to Percy-lovers (like Penny doesn't have enough 
to do): 
> compile a list of *positive* Percy moments.  

so, I *think* nobody caught this, one of my favourite moments in the 
entire canon.  From memory, I'm afraid.

At the Yule ball, Ron has just been exceptionally rude to Krum, and K 
walks off, looking for Hermione.

Percy bustles over, and says something like: 'Made friends with 
Viktor Krum, Ron?', rubbing his hands together, 'Excellent, 
excellent - that's what it's all about, international magical co-
operation.'

It's very funny in its own right, but I like it particularly because 
if Ron had been entering into the spirit of the thing, it would have 
been a positive moment for him, too.  As it is, Percy's innocent 
enthusiasm is just what Ron needs, if he is capable of receiving it.

David




From cindysphynx at home.com  Thu Feb 28 14:25:31 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:25:31 -0000
Subject: The Big Bangers and Neville
In-Reply-To: <a5jr96+q5fd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5lekr+l7kj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35859

Kimberly wrote (for the Neville & Trevor backstory challenge):

<snip Spot-On Canon Indisputable Neville Backstory> 

> ::Kimberly smiles, completely satisfied with her back-story, until 
> she notices the disappointed faces of her audience, and her smile 
> fades::
> 
> What?  What's wrong with that?  Surely being the worse-than-
orphaned 
> child of madpersons who were tortured needlessly by evil dark 
wizards 
> and spending the rest of his childhood trying not to die when his 
> uncle tries to force magic out of him is a pretty good Bang.  

::blinks::

So there's no Memory Charm Neville?  There's no Reverse Memory Charm 
Neville?  We're left with . . . with Daytime Talk Show Neville, who 
has grown up with problems and stress, has perfectly normal personal 
shortcomings, has nagging feelings of inadequacy, and is generally 
bummed out about his lot in life Neville?  Neville, who is worried 
that he will repeat these behavior patterns with his own children.  
Neville, who will have his problems neatly resolved by a mail-order 
PhD-type before the next commercial break.  

Oh, I'm so disappointed! 

::shoulders slump, head hangs, fingers can barely reach keyboard::

This is the polar opposite of both Big Bang and Steady State. It 
needs a cosmology nickname though, something that says "That's All 
There Is", but I can't think of one.  

But then again, Kimberly's theory does rise to the Neville & Trevor 
Challenge, does it not?  I have to hand it to Kimberly, as she 
bravely entered the calm and placid waters with this theory, waters 
others fear to tread.

Can I at least make a special request?  Would Kimberly like to opine 
on the timeline issue (how old was Neville when all of this 
happened)?  Is there any chance we can get a ruling on how the 
Lestranges were caught?  Are you getting any vibe on whether Neville 
was tortured also?  Any thoughts on why he is taken to visit his 
parents, and on whether they are really lost and gone forever?

Kimberly again:

>I examine and pass by theories left and right, 
> and can't seem to pick any that I *really* like.  I guess so far I 
> mostly go with A.N.T.I.T.H.E.S.I.S. (All Nice Theories, I Think. 
> However Each Supposition Is Strained).  So far George and Diana 
are 
> the only theories I can really get excited about, and even then 
I'm 
> divided, since I'd like a *little* bang to go with it.

Hmmm.  Maybe we'll have to sift through the file cabinet that is 
bursting with old theories and find something that suits 
you. ::rustle rustle::   Hmmm.  Are you open to speculation about 
the nature of the protection on Privet Drive?  Are you lying awake 
at night trying to get a handle on Filch and Mrs. Norris?  Or maybe 
you'd be comfortable trying on a few "This Or That Character Is 
Definitely Evil" theories?  Or maybe we can sort out this idea of 
which wand was doing what in the graveyard scene?  There must be 
*something*!  :-)

Cindy (who tried really hard to figure out an Arthur Weasley 
Imperius backstory for Elkins but who failed spectacularly)




From cindysphynx at home.com  Thu Feb 28 14:45:57 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:45:57 -0000
Subject: Can One Like The Twins *And* Percy?
Message-ID: <a5lfr5+sija@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35860

I've been following the Percy discussion, and I think I agree 
with . . . everyone.  JKR does seem to encourage the reader to view 
Percy as a cartoonish straight-man.  She also paints Fred and George 
as cartoonish jokers.  Percy has his fans; Fred and George have 
their fans.  But given that Percy is in many ways the opposite of 
Fred and George, is it possible to really like both sets of 
characters?

I must say that I like Fred and George better than Percy.  To the 
extent I like Percy, it is just to have a laugh at Percy's expense.  
(Hey, it's not my fault; JKR *wants* me to have a laugh at Percy's 
expense.)  I know I have heard others say they don't like Fred and 
George because they don't appreciate their particular brand of 
humor, but I wonder if they find Percy more interesting.

And for what it is worth, Percy doesn't seem to have any Edge at 
all, and the jury is still out on whether Percy is Tough.  He seems 
to bounce around between "pompous" and "worried."  It's a rather 
harsh assessment, but there you have it.  Sorry, Percy fans.  

Maybe Percy will get more interesting in future books?  We can 
always hope, but somehow I doubt it.  JKR really has her work cut 
out for her if she is going to flesh out every recurring character 
that is two-dimensional and could benefit from some development.  
The list is *really* long.  Fred & George.  Bill.  Charlie.  Ginny.  
Sirius.  Fudge.  Molly.  Arthur.  McGonagall.  Flitwick.  Draco.  
And of course Mrs. Lestrange.  :-)

There just may not be time for a make-over for Percy.

Cindy (who, if she could pick only one character for major character 
development in future books, would pick Draco because she's already 
had too much of Draco just showing up and saying nasty things to the 
trio over and over)




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Thu Feb 28 16:02:50 2002
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:02:50 -0000
Subject: Phoenix (filk)
Message-ID: <a5lkba+orli@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35861

Phoenix 

(To the tune of Feelings)

Dedicated to Jenny of Ravenclaw

The original can be heard at

http://www.foxlink.net/~bobnbren/1970s.html#F

Phoenix, no one's published Phoenix
Trying to figure why Phoenix is late
Teardrops, rolling down from Fawkes bird,
Might make me forget how long we've had to wait

Phoenix, the bookstores don't have Phoenix
I guess I'll never that read that book, it'll never be released 

Phoenix, woe-woe-woe Phoenix
Hog-wa-warts addicts are all up in arms

Fiat, can they write a fiat for us
Tell Rowling to get rolling or her fans will go berserk

Warehouse, there's nowhere any warehouse
Where they're clearing floor space for a summer release.

Filing, filing is Scholastic Books now
They're filing a Chapter 11 if they can't publish you again

Screen pix, woe-woe-woe screen flicks
War-War-Ners' screen pix again, but nothing at Barnes



    -	CMC

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





From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Thu Feb 28 16:18:39 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:18:39 -0000
Subject: Potter's home destruction + AK theory
In-Reply-To: <a5jq4a+omlb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5ll90+klik@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35862

abigailnus  wrote:
I think we can assume, despite the vaguaries of language, that however 
great the destruction was it wasn't complete,  or it's doubtful that a 
15-month-old baby would have survived it completely unscathed as he is 
when being delivered to the Durselys.  Also, since I doubt that Hagrid 
Voldemort died and the house collapsed, the ruins would have had to 
provide some shelter from the elements.  We don't know exactly where 
Godric's Hollow is supposed to be apart from the fact that Hagrid flew 
over Bristol to get from there to Surrey, but wherever it is it would 
have been very cold in the middle of the night at the end of October - 
a baby might freeze to death if left outside in that kind of cold for 
too long.
______________________________________________________________________

Dicentra countered:
Of course, if the failed AK produced a forceful enough explosion, the
house would have blown out away from Harry in all directions. I
imagine seeing Harry sitting in his crib, ruins scattered around him
like the walls of a crater. That could explain how the house could go
down without hurting him. 

As for the cold, babies, especially wizard babies, can stand up to the 
cold rather well.  Didn't a two-year-old in Canada survive being frozen 
nearly solid this winter?
______________________________________________________________________


I feel I'm starting to repeat myself (with this one, I'll have used the 
same argument three times in less than a day in three different post/
topics), but we've also got to consider the wizards innate 
capabilities: if a boy thrown out of a third floor window can bounce 
harmlessly down the street (Longbottom), a baby wizard can surely 
survive for half an hour in the cold, which is what would've taken 
anyone to arrive, after such an explosion.

Of course, the problem is not surviving AFTER the explosion (which I 
agree with Dicentra that it must have been strong enpough to blow AWAY 
the bits and pieces of the Potter's house), but sirviving TO the 
explotion (even if Harry was half a room away, which I can't quite 
imagine), that sort of force should have rattled him, at the very 
least. Then again, maybe all the Potters had permanent shielding spells 
on them as protection, which would be a further reason for Voldie's 
indiscriminate use of the AK.


> --Dicentra, who wonders if Voldemort's body was found next to Lily's,
> and if not, how did folks know he had been defeated?

Read my post number 32751 to know what my views are on that particular 
question, but to sum them up: Voldie's body WAS found besides Lily's, 
and the "thing" that fleed from Voldie's body was what his soul had 
turned into, which wasn't a soul anymore, which is why he was the 
second person to survive an AK spell (ever seen the ironic situation 
that he is "the man who didn't die"?).


The lupinesque Gray Wolf theorized (that, I think, would be me):
Thus, my on theory (a variation of the original) right now says that 
"unforgivable curses are those spells that cannot be countered by any 
magical mean". No amount of wand-weaving will stop any of the three 
from reaching it's destiny (phisical means are still useful, like 
getting behind a gravestone, as are psiquical means, like the one seen 
in the Imperious). Harry has never told us if he's learnt shield magic 
(protective magic), but I assume some must exists, since all wizards 
have innate shielding capabilities (? la bouncing Longbottom), and it 
seems only natural that when they started developing magical 
capabilities in antiquity they started by strengthening their own 
innate powers.

To which Amy "lupinesque" Z said:
> Harry does start to learn shield charms for the third task, actually 
> (chapter 31--it's the one Hermione breaks through with a Jelly-Legs 
> Jinx), and I think you hit the nail on the head:  they're ineffective 
> against AK.  Otherwise, wouldn't Moody say "there's no blocking it, 
> except if you put up a very strong Shield Charm and the wizard trying 
> to kill you isn't too powerful?"
> 
> Amy Z

Thanks for the back-up canon! This means that my thory on the 
clasification of unforgivable curses might actully be correct. I do 
have an objection: I don't mind being called "lupinesque", since I love 
wolves to distraction (being wonderful, albeit misunderstood, animals), 
but I do, normally, answer to _GREY_ Wolf. Gray Wolf is s.o. else (who, 
strangely enough, does have that name in pseudo-RL: one of the books 
I've read, although I hate his guts).

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From naama_gat at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 28 16:27:51 2002
From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:27:51 -0000
Subject: Fudge is Way Evil and I have the acronyms to prove it
In-Reply-To: <a5jpa4+lok9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5llq7+67ve@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35863

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" <bonnie at n...> 
wrote:
<ruthless snip> 
> But because few Potterverse characters turn out to be what
> Harry originally thinks they are, I have to anticipate some kind of
> revelation later on. Not so much because I don't believe Harry's
> interpretation to be valid, but because JKR likes to yank the rug 
out
> as often as possible.
> 
> Eloise continues:
> > My view of him is, incidentally the inverse of my view of Snape.
> > I see Snape as a strong man who did evil very deliberately, but 
who
> having
> > realised his error made a principled decision to change sides. I 
see
> Fudge as
> > a weak man, who hasn't decided anything. he's just gone with the
> flow and now
> > he and potentially the rest of the wizarding world are in Big 
Trouble.
> 
> Dicentra replies:
> I think that Big Trouble is definitely what we're in for, but as I
> stated earlier, JKR rarely lets us maintain a particular impression 
> of a character for long.
> 

Okay. This is one of my pet peeves. I've commented on this a few 
times (way back) but didn't get much response. So I'll just say it 
again (in the most provocative way I can :-)) :


MOST Pottervers characters turn out to be exactly what Harry 
originally thinks they are. Moreover, once a character has been 
established s/he NEVER surprises us as far as his/her basic qualities 
go. If you'll think back to the books, you'll see that all the 
characters who surprised us were part of each book's plot and the 
twist in our perception of them serves and is part of the twist in 
the book's plot.

PS/SS: Only two characters surprise us - Quirrel and Snape, both as 
part of the who-dunnit plot. Quirrel, the timid seeming, who turns 
out to be the bad guy, and Snape, the classical red herring, who 
turns out to be a good (well, good-intentioned at least) guy.

CoS: Only Tom Riddle gives us a nasty surprise. Seems a nice, 
upstanding guy, and turns out to be the darkest wizard in a century. 
Ginny is used by him, which is a surprise, but it doesn't shed any 
sinister light on her character. 

PoA: Obviously the major twist involves Sirius and Scabbers. Other 
than that, I don't think there are other surprises as far as 
characters go.

GoF: The final twist - Moody revealed as the evil Crouch. I don't 
think there are other major surprises. Krum maybe? I don't think so. 
Harry's impression of him (and mine) was pretty positive from the 
beginning. 

Apart from these twists, that are very closely tied each specific 
book's plot, NO other characters change in any significant way 
(particularly the Good-Bad affiliation). Even characters such as 
Lupin, who seem suspicious for a while, once their innocence has been 
established, do not change. 
Maybe we should distinguish between "guest appearances" and "regular 
cast". The surprises all come from the "guest appearnace". Once a 
character is established, he DOESN'T change. There are periods of 
time when we are not sure about a character - Dobby in CoS, Lupin in 
PoA, Krum in GoF, but once they are established as innocent, they 
become part of the "regular cast" and DO NOT change. 
This is true for the first four books, of course. To use induction in 
this case is an obvious fallacy, since JKR is not a mindless force of 
nature but a reflexive human being (meaning it might all be a big 
build up for the final surprise - e.g., Voldemort turns out to be a 
misunderstood saint).
No member of the regular cast (so far, of course) has surprised us. 
So, if I apply this to Fudge, I'd say that (as a member of the 
regular cast) he is precisely what he seems to be. Lacking in moral 
courage, tending to avoid nasty realities (remember that "you must 
love each other.. er.. deep down"?) but not affiliated with Evil.


Naama, hoping for some reaction




From jktaylor at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 28 16:11:18 2002
From: jktaylor at yahoo.com (jktaylor)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:11:18 -0000
Subject: Florence/Firenze
Message-ID: <a5lkr6+c3e8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35864

Theory:
Florence is not evil ? Florence unexpectedly resisted

Reasoning:
Firenze the centaur.  Firenze is the city that English speakers call 
Florence (check out http://english.firenze.net/, if you like).  In 
PS/SS, the Centaurs have a somewhat heated exchange because Firenze 
took action to save Harry, and acted against what was foretold in the 
stars.  Centaurs, are not meant to interfere, they are expected to 
just let things unfold.  With the purposeful naming JKR has 
demonstrated throughout the series, it seems almost certain (IMO) 
that these two characters are connected in some way.  All we know of 
Florence is that she was caught in a little lip-lock with a hex-
hurling hunk (sorry about "hunk" but I couldn't resist the 
alliteration).  We know a bit more about Firenze.  For instance, he 
did not back down from his decision to set himself against what he 
already knew was LV in the forest, even though it greatly upset the 
other Centaurs (the others that we know about, anyway).  We also know 
that Firenze was aware of LV's plan to get the stone and that he was 
subsisting on Unicorn blood, but he didn't warn the humans.  He only 
interfered when he thought it was critical to do so.  If these two 
characters share the common bond that I think they do, then like 
Firenze, Florence knew that evil was brewing, and was expected not to 
interfere.  But at some critical moment, she chose to stand against 
evil, shocking those around her.

//Julie T. 






From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Thu Feb 28 16:45:13 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:45:13 -0000
Subject: Mountains=the "new place" ?
In-Reply-To: <a5kajc+730l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5lmqp+25pk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35865

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "abced99420" <abced99 at h...> wrote:
> Hi!
> I've lately been attempting to plot out what I think will happen in 
> the whole of book 5, to stave off despair of it will actually ever be 
> published. Anyway, I am of the opinion that Hagrid will be the one 
> to die, and I figure that if JKR is going to kill off one of her 
> personal favorite characters, she will most likely give him some 
> major "screen time" first. What better way to do that than give 
> Hagrid his own major subplot with the giants, in the mountains? 
> What I haven't figured out yet is a plausible time and reason for 
> Harry to go to the mountains with him? Does anyone have any 
> ideas about this? I think that "giant land" would be a very 
> interesting place to see!
> cheers,
> abced99

I'm not one for remembering quotes (except from books), so I'll have 
someone else quote the interview, but I believe that the place to be 
visited in book 5 is supposed to be someplace which has been mentioned 
but hasn't been visited by us until now. My own guess would be Godric's 
Hollow but of course it's just as speculative as yours. On the bit 
about someone dying, I think a major character is supposed to die in 
book 7, and several characters during the three of them (we're going to 
be awhased in friend's blood by the time the series finish if this is 
really true), including "someone who's death is going to be very hard 
to write" for JKR. My own guess is Ron for book 7, but haven't given a 
thought to the rest. Read message 32714 for the detailed version of my 
theory of Ron's death

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Thu Feb 28 16:48:29 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:48:29 -0000
Subject: More on Percy
Message-ID: <a5ln0t+ardi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35866

I just wrote a ferocious and long defense of Percy Weasley, but the 
computer then crashed, and I feel too depressed to get back to work on 
it just yet. Therefore, I'll just mention another positive aspect of 
Percy.

He sings in the shower.

So there,

Eileen




From moongirlk at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 28 16:50:50 2002
From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:50:50 -0000
Subject: Percy challenge, the brave, FIRE, Snape, puns, sermon
In-Reply-To: <a5k9e3+lbc3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5ln5a+79iq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35867

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elfundeb" <elfundeb at a...> wrote:
> Perhaps the real challenge would be to put together a list of 
> positive things Fred and George have done, besides giving Harry the 
> Marauders Map which, I hasten to add, was given to Harry only so he 
> could engage in blatant rule-breaking for no purpose other than 
> personal pleasure.
> 
> Debbie, who can't figure out how her one-sentence response turned 
> into a three-paragraph post

I haven't got the books with me at the moment, and can't be as 
thorough as I'd like, so these are just top-of-the-head things.

1 - Offering to help Harry with his trunk upon their first meeting and
2 - doing same on other occasions.
3 - Making Harry feel welcome when he was sorted into Gryffindor and 
when he was added to the Quidditch team with no experience.
4 - Coming to Harry's rescue in the Flying Ford Anglia when he's been 
locked in his room.
5 - Along with Ron, explaining a lot of wizard world stuff to Harry 
and Hermione.
6 - Better than Ron, never once expressing any kind of prejudice 
against those who are different.
7 - trying to cheer up Ginny and Harry during CoS (maybe not 
effective in Ginny's case, but nice, nonetheless).
8 - insisting that Percy spend Christmas with the family

I don't have a lot of time at the moment, so I'll quit here, but if I 
get a chance I'll flip through the books soon to refresh my memory 
and post more.  But let me add my favorite purely speculative one:
9 - Helping Ginny come up with clever rhymes for Harry's Valentine.

kimberly
always ready with a good word about a Weasley




From alison at alisonpage.demon.co.uk  Thu Feb 28 16:27:05 2002
From: alison at alisonpage.demon.co.uk (vilaphile)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:27:05 -0000
Subject: Snape and the philosophy of virtue
In-Reply-To: <10d.e2acbd3.29af77a1@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a5llop+aa51@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35868

Eloise said - 

> Anyone who has been involved in, or has been interested in our 
discussions of 
> Snape and how he came to change sides might be interested to listen 
to a 
> discussion broadcast on BBC Radio 4 this morning on the nature of 
and 
> motivation for virtuous behaviour.
> 
> Touches on ideas from Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, Hume, Hobbs, 
Darwin, 
> Nietsche, Kant, Utilitarian movement.


There is a web site where you fill in a questionnaire, and it tells 
you what moral philosopher fits in best with your own ideas. It's at

http://www.selectsmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/

I tried filling this in giving 'the answers I thought Snape might 
give' (that was quite interesting in itself, trying to put myself in 
his shoes). The answer I got was Jean Paul Sartre, but I'm not 
convinced that was the right result, I must have given the wrong 
answers. Satre isn't 'rational' enough.

I would say Kant is the 'Snapiest' philosopher. Kant says people must 
act virtuously, regardless of their inclinations otherwise, that 
rationality is all-important, and that the most important imperative 
is not to treat other people as means to ends, but to respect them as 
ends in themselves. 

I think this last point is quite a crucial one for Snape, he may not 
*like* other people, and he may think they are rather stupid, but he 
has an underlying principle, which won't let him use them as mere 
toys or tools, regardless of inclinations otherwise, which is what 
separates him from the DEs.


Alison












From inviziblegirl at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 28 17:36:11 2002
From: inviziblegirl at hotmail.com (Amber ?)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:36:11 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Can One Like The Twins *And* Percy?
Message-ID: <F11733UKyM25IFKqhx2000016e5@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35869


>From: "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at home.com>
>
>I've been following the Percy discussion, and I think I agree
>with . . . everyone.  JKR does seem to encourage the reader to view
>Percy as a cartoonish straight-man.  She also paints Fred and George
>as cartoonish jokers.  Percy has his fans; Fred and George have
>their fans.  But given that Percy is in many ways the opposite of
>Fred and George, is it possible to really like both sets of
>characters?

I wish I could say I was one of them, but not really. I like Fred and George 
in the books and laugh at their jokes (when they are not mean). But in real 
life, I would LOATHE the twins. I do NOT like practical jokes. I would 
probably stay far away from Fred and George in real life, out of disgust and 
irritation.

Would it surprise anybody if I were to say that I identify with Percy and 
love his character? Nah...

>I know I have heard others say they don't like Fred and
>George because they don't appreciate their particular brand of
>humor, but I wonder if they find Percy more interesting.

Well, I find Percy more interesting because I strongly suspect there is more 
to Percy than is on the surface. I also think that at times, the Pompous 
Head Boy act is exactly that: an act. He might be one of those people who 
don't know how to act around people and thus acts pompous out of not knowing 
what to do.

His obsessive rules-following could stem from his childhood. When Voldemort 
was "killed" the first time, Percy was probably 5. Thus, his early years 
were spent in the shadow of Voldemort. Quite terrifying. A way he might've 
dealt with that is to follow rules so that "nothing bad will happen".  
*shrug* 'Tis possible.

If you read fanfiction, there is also a lot of angst potential for Percy. I 
love angst and thus am drawn to him. Furthermore, with the way that the 
fourth book ended, Percy is going to have a lot of trouble/decisions to 
make.

I also admire Percy's drive and ambition. You have to admit, it takes guts 
to be Prefect, Head Boy and intelligence to score highly on O.W.L.s and 
N.E.W.T.s. The way he works hard for his goals is wonderful.

>And for what it is worth, Percy doesn't seem to have any Edge at
>all, and the jury is still out on whether Percy is Tough.  He seems
>to bounce around between "pompous" and "worried."  It's a rather
>harsh assessment, but there you have it.  Sorry, Percy fans.

Ah, he's tough. Did you not notice this scene in GOF:

Oh dang, my books aren't here with me. Well, after the kafuffle with Winky 
and the wands and the Dark Mark in the sky, Arthur, Bill, Charlie and Percy 
return from fighting with the "Death Eaters". I think he returns with a 
bloody nose or something like that. Evidence from a real fight. Furthermore, 
when the trouble began, Percy ran off with his brothers and father without a 
moments thought.

Percy's tough. We just haven't seen a lot of it and what we have seen is 
low-key.

Sometimes I wish JKR hadn't created so many interesting characters. She only 
has so much space to develop them and thus some have to fall to the wayside. 
*sighs*

~Amber

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

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

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




From mercia at ireland.com  Thu Feb 28 16:55:19 2002
From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:55:19 -0000
Subject: prior incantato/priori incantatem & Sirius' wand
Message-ID: <a5lndn+iidh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35870

This relates to the discussion of the possibility that Sirius' 
innocence could have been proved by forcing his wand to reveal the 
last spell performed as is done through 'prior incantato' on Harry's 
wand after the Quidditch World Cup. When someone queried that on the 
basis of Dumbledore's description of priori incantatem as something 
extremely rare and the involuntary effect of two wands sharing the 
same magical core it was pointed out that these seem to be two 
different matters. Prior incantato is definitely a spell (it is even 
called simple by Fudge) whereas priori incantatem is more of a 
curious effect - Dumbledore or Sirius (can't remember which and 
haven't got GoF to hand at the moment) call it the reverse spell 
effect. It is certainly not in the control of the wizard and if it 
depends on the wands being 'brothers' it would not be of general use. 
But I am a bit confused by all this. My Latin is very rusty and never 
was that good but these just look to me like declension differences. 
Is incantato/incantatem a noun or verb. If noun in which case; 
incantato looks like a dative or ablative to me and incantatem an 
accusative. What is the relationship to prior or priori? That also 
looks like a matter of declension to me. I sort of vaguely related it 
to the phrase a priori (which is ablataive case, right?) but then 
realised I wasn't quite sure in what way that was used. Are there any 
Latin scholars out there who could define why JKR used these two 
different forms for the two instances mentioned and if they could 
therefore be two separate things? Or did she get confused herself and 
make a mistake in specifying such particular circumstances for priori 
incantatem?

On the slightly different matter of Sirius' lost wand, it is quite 
right that he 'borrowed' wands in the Shrieking Shack. But in that 
case I wonder how he was planning to kill Peter before getting access 
to a wand. Strangling him with his his bare hands? It seemed more 
accidental than planned that he had a few wizards around with wands 
when he finally cornered Peter? Or if Crookshanks had managed to get 
Peter to Sirius as a rat, was he going to keep form as Padfoot and 
eat him? (He lives on rats while hiding out in the cave in GoF) 
Though come to think of it that would not have worked as he would at 
least have needed Peter's body to prove his innocence. Has Sirius 
managed to get hold of a wand even by GoF? He will surely need one to 
take his full magical part in the fight to come. Presumably now he is 
going to be lying low with Lupin, Remus can acquire one for him. 
Although if the wand chooses the wizard sending someone else to buy 
one for you would be less than ideal. How in that case could Sirius 
get a wand? Do you think there might be black market dealers in wands 
in the WW who will supply wands to shady characters no questions 
asked? Is it heresy to think JKR might not have fully thought out 
some of these complications. She really had better get the next book 
out before sheer frustration at the delay has us all analysing the 
thing to bits.

Mercia    





From inviziblegirl at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 28 17:59:16 2002
From: inviziblegirl at hotmail.com (Amber ?)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:59:16 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Percy!
Message-ID: <F125XuZi0me3abTd9Qk0000112d@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35871


Dang, I should've combined this in the other Percy post I wrote. Ah, the 
Mods can zing lightning bolts at me, if they wish...

Penny wrote:
> >I truly
> > don't see that she's trying to convey that Percy is to be disliked
> > as a character.

And Amy answered:
>I wish this were true, but how many readers would like someone like
>Percy if they knew him in person?  (Not I, so why do I have so much
>affection for him as a character?  Am I just perverse?  Or is it a
>chilling recognition that there but for the grace of God and a more
>secure sense of self go I?)

Hey! I know/knew someone in Real Life who was very much like Percy. Followed 
the rules to the letter, perfect grades on everything, very driven, and a 
bit pompous about it all. I was friends with her, I liked her. She was a 
wonderfully reliable person, always with ideas of things to do. The only 
problems that came up was when her ideas of what was "right" opposed with 
the groups.

I think everyone will agree with JKR goes a tad overboard with the 
cartoonish aspect of Percy. He gets some horrid lines but his actions are 
usually much more positive. And may I remind everyone that we see Percy only 
a fraction of the time. We can guess, but we don't know for certain how he 
is when he's not in Harry's sight. And what info we get about him, we get 
secondhand through Ron or the twins, who are NOT fond of their brother. 
Thus, it is tainted in a sense.

I am pretty certain I would like Percy if I knew him in Real Life. I like 
responsible, reliable people. You know that they are always going to be 
there for you. Yeah, they're uptight and pompous, but that's not all that 
they are. Same with Percy, who we get glimpses of other characteristics.

Of course, I'm biased, as I share some characteristics with Percy. And I 
don't think I'm that bad a person to be around. *grin* Of course, people are 
welcome to disagree...

~Amber

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

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

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Feb 28 18:28:05 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 18:28:05 -0000
Subject: Snape, Dumbledore and the philosophy of virtue
In-Reply-To: <a5llop+aa51@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5lsrl+qp5b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35872

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "vilaphile" <alison at a...> wrote:

> There is a web site where you fill in a questionnaire, and it tells 
> you what moral philosopher fits in best with your own ideas. It's at
> 
> http://www.selectsmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/
> 
> I tried filling this in giving 'the answers I thought Snape might 
> give' (that was quite interesting in itself, trying to put myself in 
> his shoes). The answer I got was Jean Paul Sartre, but I'm not 
> convinced that was the right result, I must have given the wrong 
> answers. Satre isn't 'rational' enough.

I tried the same experiment (putting in the answers I thought Snape
would give), and found it unexpectedly difficult.  You'd think, with
all the time I spent obsessing about Snape, I'd find it easier to get
into his head.  Then again, who wants to be in head, anyway?  It can't
be a pleasant place.

Anyhow, I did end up with Kant as the answer, but it might be a biased
result -- I've been viewing Snape from a Kantian perspective all
along, so I may have been subconsiously choosing answers that would
give the expected result.

Then I got to thinking about Dumbledore.  His statement to Harry in
CoS about how it's our choices that determine what we are can be
viewed as Kantian -- as long as you make the right choices, you're a
good person, regardless of what your natural inclination might be.  If
Snape's morality has been influenced by Dumbledore -- and I'm guessing
that it has -- then it all fits.  This would also explain Dumbledore's
legendary willingness to give people second chances.  If he sees evil
people as being evil because of their choices rather than because of
their fundamental natures, then if someone indicates a desire to make
new, better choices, then they should be allowed the opportunity.

Dumbledore himself, though, doesn't strike me as a Kantian character. 
He seems to genuinely like people, and to like doing good, so that
conflict between duty and inclination is absent in him.  But I also
think that he's wise enough not to think that other people must be
just like him in order to be good.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com






From jmt59home at aol.com  Thu Feb 28 18:15:12 2002
From: jmt59home at aol.com (jtdogberry)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 18:15:12 -0000
Subject: The Big Bangers and Neville
In-Reply-To: <a5jr96+q5fd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5ls3g+h6jk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35873

> Cindy wrote:
> > > I'd like to think my Neville Reverse Memory Charm Rope-A-Dope 
has 
> > > fended off Elkins' rather vigorous assault. But I must point 
out 
> > > that I *still* haven't heard an alternative backstory 
explanation 
> > of 
> > > what is going on with Neville and Trevor.  

moongirlk replied:
Surely being the worse-than-
> orphaned 
> > child of madpersons who were tortured needlessly by evil dark 
> wizards 
> > and spending the rest of his childhood trying not to die when his 
> > uncle tries to force magic out of him is a pretty good Bang.  

Nope I agree with you, I used to be a big fan of the whole memory 
charm thing but its too easy. I am also understanding more of Neville.
I think Neville's problems lie with his lack of confidence. He sees 
himself as a failure, a hugh dissapointment to his family, friends 
and teachers. He can't do anything right, and he belives it. He is 
surrounded by "if and buts". He is constantly reminded of what happen 
to his parents. He doeasn't have anyone he can related to, no one 
person he can really turn to. He is lonley and confused and so the 
cycle starts again.
What Neville needs is a real mentor, someone to guide him and help 
him grow to his full potential and above all, someone who he can 
trust and really look upto and then, the sky is the limit!!!
But who? Well, who else do we know that has a confidence crisis. 
Snape!
Yep, the same Snape who bullies Neville in potions.
What is she ranting about, I here you say, well keep reading.
I belive part of Snape's problem is that no one really respects him, 
no really looks up to him, they all see him as a traitor, teacher or 
evil type person. If Neville were to pluck up the courage to ask 
snape for help, I think Snape would be flattered (he knows that 
Neville is scared of him) that Neville has come to him for help and 
will mentor Neville to greatness because Neville will have a parent 
type figure, someone he can talk to, some one to help him. in return, 
Snape gets the respect and admiration he has longed for, for so long! 
Someone who needs him to be there, who would notice if he were not 
there, would miss him if he went and someone who he could boast about!

That's my current thoughts anyway.
Dogberry






From Edblanning at aol.com  Thu Feb 28 19:12:55 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:12:55 EST
Subject: Oops, my ethnocentricity is showing ( was Identified flying objects)
Message-ID: <23.1a074db3.29afdb37@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35874

Right, third attempt thanks to AOL turning itself off, the system crashing 
and my general inability to remember to save things.

Having sent a post in which I suggested that the MoM suffers from 
institutionalised racism, I fell to considering asking Tabouli how Chinese 
witches and wizards get around ( clouds, like Monkey?). Then it hit me. 
Tabouli..... Australia...... I missed out a large chunk of the world when I 
suggested that broomstick travel was confined to Europe and North America. At 
this point hysteria nearly gripped me. Confessions of guilt were about to 
pour from my lips. A spell in Azkaban threatened. But I regained control 
enough to simply say sorry. How easy it is to be ethnocentric when you belong 
to a nation that once considered itself the centre of the world......Those 
were the days...but how would I know, I'm *far* too young!

But this made me realise that, little as I know about our own history of 
witchcraft, I know nothing of the subject Down Under. (Am I allowed to say 
this,or does it imply a northern-centric view of the world? I'm getting 
paranoid.)
Do you have a history of witchcraft? Northern hemisphere, European-type 
witchcraft, that is, rather than indigenous beliefs, or were Australia and NZ 
settled too late? Did you have witch hunts and trials like ours? Is there a 
modern day storybook tradition of witchcraft?

And another thing What about intercontinental travel? How do they cover these 
distances? Surely too far to fly. Not everyone can apparate, and wouldn't it 
be risky? Surely not the floo network. Port keys? Is there a form of 
wizarding  long-distance mass transport? Invisible cruise ships, perhaps.
It must be some kind of issue. The Weasleys used their winnings to visit Bill 
in Egypt, so they must have had to pay for something. Presumably not 
accomodation, since a wave of the wand could  'improve' Bill's pad to 
accomodate all of them. I assume it was transport.

Eloise, who wonders how many members of this list, apart from Tabouli, she's 
unintentionally insulted and wishes she'd kept hold of that cape so that she 
could hide her shame.


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




From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com  Thu Feb 28 19:12:22 2002
From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:12:22 -0000
Subject: First-Rate Chapter Endings
References: <a5ji10+5eqe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <006801c1c08b$f4584fe0$359bbc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq>

No: HPFGUIDX 35875

Then Lupin gets a look at Scabbers:

"What's my rat got to do with anything?"
"That's not a rat," ........."by the name of Peter Pettigrew."

Now, how can anyone stop reading after suddenly learning that 
Peter's alive, that Peter is a rat, that Peter has been hiding in 
Ron's pocket for three books, that Black isn't evil, that Lupin 
isn't evil, that Lupin is a werewolf, and that Black and Lupin are 
friends, all in just 5 pages?  

I must agree with 100& cindysphinx's comments on PoA and add that of all the canon (read and re-read countless times), for me personally the last few chapters of PoA are amongst the best things I have ever read.  
I thought - first time through - that after they all came out of the Womping Willow it was * The End * but I realised I had so much still to read!  Then JKR brings out the drama in the hospital wing, the time-turner and the rescue of the suddenly doomed Sirius and Buckbeak.  You can only marvel! 

The only thing that comes close for me is the chapter ending in GoF where Fudge (who I don't think is a DE but just in denial about the utterly terrifying news...) is determined to ignore Dumbledore's warnings so Dumbledore has to start organising everyone at speed and even gets Sirius and Snape to admit they are fighting on the same side. High drama and very understated tension.

Felicia


* Off to see Alan Rickman in Private Lives in London on Sunday 3rd March :-) *


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




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Thu Feb 28 19:47:24 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:47:24 -0000
Subject: FILK: Yesterday 
Message-ID: <a5m1gc+c45v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35876

Voldemort:
Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away
Now it looks as though they're here to stay
Oh, I believe in yesterday.

Suddenly, I'm not half the man I used to be,
I lack any corporality.
Oh, yesterday came suddenly.

Why I had to go I don't know I couldn't say.
I cursed somehow wrong, now I long for yesterday.

Yesterday, vice was such an easy game to play.
Now I need a place to hide away.
Oh, I believe in yesterday.

Mm mm mm mm mm.




From Edblanning at aol.com  Thu Feb 28 19:49:59 2002
From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:49:59 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] prior incantato/priori incantatem & Sirius' wand
Message-ID: <16a.9972f39.29afe3e7@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35877

Mercia
> When someone queried that on the 
> basis of Dumbledore's description of priori incantatem as something 
> extremely rare and the involuntary effect of two wands sharing the 
> same magical core it was pointed out that these seem to be two 
> different matters. Prior incantato is definitely a spell (it is even 
> called simple by Fudge) whereas priori incantatem is more of a 
> curious effect - Dumbledore or Sirius (can't remember which and 
> haven't got GoF to hand at the moment) call it the reverse spell 
> effect. It is certainly not in the control of the wizard and if it 
> depends on the wands being 'brothers' it would not be of general use. 
> But I am a bit confused by all this. My Latin is very rusty and never 
> was that good but these just look to me like declension differences. 
> 
Hi! It was me (Eloise) who pointed that out.
My Latin is also very rusty, but even so, I don't think JKR uses it 
grammatically. The spells etc are *based* on Latin, but the forms have 
changed.
I get the impression she frequently uses the 'o' ending, which in real Latin 
would be a first person singular present verb ending as a spell word. It's a 
bit odd, because you'd expect an imperative, whereas the spells seem to be 
saying 'I do whatever' .A clear one is Imperio, obviously I rule/control ( 
although I'm not clear if it occurs in real Latin in a verbal form). Crucio 
is a bit different. It apparently means to inflict crucifyingly intense pain, 
but of course, we only have the word 'crucify' because of *two* Latin words, 
cruci fixus, later transmitted through Late Latin, Ecclesiastical Latin and 
old French. The curse has completely lost the 'fixus' element.  Similarly, 
the 'em' ending of Incantatem, would indicate a noun, only accusative case, 
which again is odd. And what about Lumos? Lumen, lumenis is  Latin for light. 
 'Os'  is a *Greek* noun ending. 
So I don't think we can tell much from these endings, we just have to accept 
that they mean what JKR says they mean.
To me Prior Incantato is the spell that works on the same principle as the 
natural phenomenon, Priori Incantatem. The latter is a wand forcing the last 
spells out of its brother wand (and it is only capable on its own of doing it 
to its brother), whereas a wizard in conjunction with his wand can use Prior 
Incantato to force the last spell out of *any*  other wand.



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




From moongirlk at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 28 19:58:05 2002
From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:58:05 -0000
Subject: The Big Bangers and Neville
In-Reply-To: <a5lekr+l7kj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5m24d+be13@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35878

I wrote:

> > Surely being the worse-than-
> > orphaned 
> > child of madpersons who were tortured needlessly by evil dark 
> > wizards 
> > and spending the rest of his childhood trying not to die when his 
> > uncle tries to force magic out of him is a pretty good Bang.  

Cindy, deflated, blinked:
> 
> So there's no Memory Charm Neville?  There's no Reverse Memory 
Charm 
> Neville?  We're left with . . . with Daytime Talk Show Neville, who 
> has grown up with problems and stress, has perfectly normal 
personal 
> shortcomings, has nagging feelings of inadequacy, and is generally 
> bummed out about his lot in life Neville?  Neville, who is worried 
> that he will repeat these behavior patterns with his own children. 
> Neville, who will have his problems neatly resolved by a mail-order 
> PhD-type before the next commercial break.  
> 
> Oh, I'm so disappointed! 

Well, to be fair, he'd be more of a Night-Time Talk Show Neville, 
seeing as how Oprah no longer deals in things like Adult Children of 
Dark-Wizard-Torture Survivors.  Maybe Springer - surely he's bangier -
 would that make it any better?  Seriously, though - how is Neville's 
story any more talk show-y or less bangy than Harry's, (aside from 
the fact that Harry's still in constant conflict)?  If we need to 
invent more bang for Neville, then we're going to have to give Harry 
something more in his backstory too.  Hmmm... something good and 
bangy...  Maybe he's really Snape's love-child, and that's why Sevvie 
always keeps his hair long and greased - to disguise the fact that 
he, too, has unruly dark locks.  Of course Snape hates James, then, 
as James stole away not only his beloved Lily (another theory I will 
resolve myself to accept if real, but can't get behind as 
speculation), but also the fruit of his Slytherin loins (hence 
Harry's Slyth leanings).  And Snape is cruel to Harry because... 
because he doesn't want Harry to find out the truth, since that would 
besmirch his lovely Lily's memory.  Thus, Voldemort's pursuit of 
Harry gets a whole new Bang, since he was supposed to get rid of 
James' child, but instead he went after Snape's (which of course 
explains Snape's defection from the baddies and, once revealed to 
Dumbledore, D's acceptance of said defection).  And somewhere out 
there is the *real* threat to Voldemort.  Let's see how I can make 
this even bangier for you... AHA!  The *real* threat to Voldemort 
is... Neville, James' love-child with Florence Longbottom, of 
course!  The baddies had the chance to get rid of him all those years 
ago, and foolishly spared him, making their story all the bangier as 
well.  Harry's survival thus far is purely coincidental.  The first 
time, it really was simply mother's love that protected him, and the 
twin wands thing, well... whoda thunkit?  

::Kimberly finally takes a breath, flops down onto a handy squashy 
chair giggling, and reads on::

Cindy, shoulders aslump and head hanging, writes:
> 
> This is the polar opposite of both Big Bang and Steady State. 

::Giggles forgotten, Kimberly bites her lip in concentration and 
looks around for a third pole that could somehow be the opposite of 
*two* other poles.::

It 
> needs a cosmology nickname though, something that says "That's All 
> There Is", but I can't think of one.  

How about just calling it Faith?  Faith believes what canon places 
before her.  She's first cousins with those cute twins, Naive and 
Gullible.
 
> But then again, Kimberly's theory does rise to the Neville & Trevor 
> Challenge, does it not?  I have to hand it to Kimberly, as she 
> bravely entered the calm and placid waters with this theory, waters 
> others fear to tread.

Thank you - I'm rediculously pleased!

> Can I at least make a special request?  Would Kimberly like to 
opine 
> on the timeline issue (how old was Neville when all of this 
> happened)?  

All Faith is willing to say is that he was probably at least two, 
since that's all her Canon will divulge to her.

Is there any chance we can get a ruling on how the 
> Lestranges were caught?  

Faith has great... faith in the competence of the Aurors, and 
believes that magical forensics and/or basic detective work was 
employed to track the dastardly deed doers.  Either that or a nanny-
cam spell.

Are you getting any vibe on whether Neville 
> was tortured also?  

::Faith cringes instinctively at the thought, flips fervently through 
her Canon, nods to herself with satisfaction, and states:: 
"Almost certainly not."

Any thoughts on why he is taken to visit his 
> parents, and on whether they are really lost and gone forever?

Faith is a little confused at the first part of the question - he 
visits his parents because they're his parents, it's what one does.  
As for the second part, she's not willing to give up hope on them, 
which is all the more reason to continue to visit them regularly.  
Maybe on some deep-down level some things get through to them, and 
if/when they come out of it, they'll remember the visits.  
 
I had lamented:
> 
> >I examine and pass by theories left and right, 
> > and can't seem to pick any that I *really* like.  I guess so far 
I 
> > mostly go with A.N.T.I.T.H.E.S.I.S. (All Nice Theories, I Think. 
> > However Each Supposition Is Strained).  So far George and Diana 
> are 
> > the only theories I can really get excited about, and even then 
> I'm 
> > divided, since I'd like a *little* bang to go with it.
> 

Cindy tried to comfort me by offering theories I might be able to 
really engage in:

> Hmmm.  Maybe we'll have to sift through the file cabinet that is 
> bursting with old theories and find something that suits 
> you. ::rustle rustle::   Hmmm.  Are you open to speculation about 
> the nature of the protection on Privet Drive?  Are you lying awake 
> at night trying to get a handle on Filch and Mrs. Norris?  Or maybe 
> you'd be comfortable trying on a few "This Or That Character Is 
> Definitely Evil" theories?  Or maybe we can sort out this idea of 
> which wand was doing what in the graveyard scene?  There must be 
> *something*!  :-)

None of them really get me going.  I enjoy all the Snape theories, 
but none of them satisfies me completely.  In fact I like reading 
pretty much all the theories, but I haven't yet found one that gives 
me a "eureka!" kinda thing.  I think it's Faith's fault - she keeps 
tapping me on the shoulder and saying things like "Shouldn't we let 
the author decide that?" and "We can't know this yet.", and "tsk, 
tsk."  She doesn't mind when I hang around with George and the 
others, but she'll never let me buy a badge.  I think she's Jiminy 
Cricket's girlfriend.  I guess, though, even if she's not really a 
theory, she's a fairly decent school of thought for now (until I come 
across a real "eureka!").

So thanks for trying, Cindy - I'll keep sampling.

kimberly
who just remembered Elkins promised her some more Edge once, and 
would like very much to hear the comedic interpretation of the 
graveyard scene, please!  A good excuse to smile twistedly is always 
welcome!




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Feb 28 20:01:54 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:01:54 -0000
Subject: FILK: "I Am the Very Model of an Anti-Hero Archetype"
Message-ID: <a5m2bi+anh6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35879

I Am the Very Model of an Anti-Hero Archetype
to the tune of "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General", from
Pirates of Penzance
http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/pirates/html/p13.mid

Scene: Enter SNAPE, swirling his cloak, followed by a chorus of
SLYTHERINS

SNAPE:
I am the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype,
My condescending manner's guaranteed to make the heroes gripe,
I hang out in a dungeon that a nicer guy would wither in,
It doesn't bother me at all because I am a Slytherin.
I always dress in black with a theatrical and stylish flair,
It makes up for the fact that I don't brush my teeth or wash my hair.
I work with smelly potions in an underground laboratory
And have a gift for sarcasm and other snarky oratory.

SLYTHERINS:
He has a gift for sarcasm and other snarky oratory,
He has a gift for sarcasm and other snarky oratory,
He has a gift for sarcasm and other snarky oratory!

SNAPE:
I'm biased toward Malfoy and the other kids in Slytherin,
I terrorize Longbottom into quiverin' and ditherin',
In short I can assure you that I more than live up to the hype
Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype.

SLYTHERINS:
In short we can assure you that he more than lives up to the hype
Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype.

SNAPE:
I have an evil history that's murky and mysterious,
I have a vicious grudge against that bloody bastard Sirius,
I torment Harry Potter every opportunity I get,
But when he is imperiled I am always there to save the brat.
I was a double-agent in the previous Death Eater war,
And now I go again to risk my scrawny neck for Dumbledore,
Exactly what I'm doing, only JKR can say for sure,
But if I'm caught I'll probably get Crucio'd by Voldemort.

SLYTHERINS:
But if he's caught he'll probably get Crucio'd by Voldemort,
But if he's caught he'll probably get Crucio'd by Voldemort,
But if he's caught he'll probably get Crucio'd by Voldemort.

SNAPE:
I'm capable of standing up to hazards occupational,
I'm capable of carrying a grudge cross-generational,
In short I can assure you that I more than live up to the hype
Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype.

SLYTHERINS:
In short we can assure you that he more than lives up to the hype
Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype.

SNAPE:
In fact, when we discover the true history behind the Prank,
And learn the real reasons for my quitting the Death Eater ranks,
And why I knew Dark Magic by the time I first showed up at school,
And whether I'll make Dumbledore look like a genius or a fool,
And if Karkaroff mentored me the way he mentors Victor Krum,
And if I ever really had a crush on Harry Potter's mum,
In short, when Jo reveals the truth behind my nastiness and rage,
You'll say a better archetype has never stalked across a page.

SLYTHERINS:
In short, when Jo reveals the truth behind his nastiness and rage,
You'll say a better archetype has never stalked across a page.

SNAPE:
I'm  complicated and intense, heroic and despicable,
My motives are so twisted, some would say they're inexplicable,
In short I can assure you that I more than live up to the hype
Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype.

SLYTHERINS:
In short, we can assure you that he more than lives up to the hype
Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype!


Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From itachimusume at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 28 20:03:39 2002
From: itachimusume at yahoo.com (itachimusume)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:03:39 -0000
Subject: of flying and traveling
Message-ID: <a5m2er+penr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35880

Did anyone ever wonder how Hagrid ever made it to the island in 
PS/SS?  In the book, he said he flew there, but then he also said  
that he couldn't fly off the island with harry, 'cause he's not 
supposed to use magic.

Since I've haven't read anything about Flying without the aid of a 
magicked item.  Can this explain where Sirius's bike is?




Seiko





From aiz24 at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 28 20:30:40 2002
From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:30:40 -0000
Subject: prior incantato/priori incantatem 
In-Reply-To: <16a.9972f39.29afe3e7@aol.com>
Message-ID: <a5m41g+ech7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35881

Eloise wrote:

> To me Prior Incantato is the spell that works on the same principle 
as the 
> natural phenomenon, Priori Incantatem. The latter is a wand forcing 
the last 
> spells out of its brother wand (and it is only capable on its own 
of doing it 
> to its brother), whereas a wizard in conjunction with his wand can 
use Prior 
> Incantato to force the last spell out of *any*  other wand.

This makes it sound as if Prior Incantato is more powerful, but when 
I read "The Dark Mark" I assume that the "echo" Amos Diggory gets is 
much weaker than the ones Harry's wand impels out of Voldemort's.  
E.g. one could not use Prior Incantato to create an echo of someone 
who has just been Avada Kedavra'd and have a quick chat with 
him/her.  Too bad, because it would be invaluable for police work if 
you could ask the victim of a murder all about how the crime came 
about.  Instead I imagine a fainter echo, just a wee little wisp that 
indicates what happened with the wand, nothing more.

I can cite no canon for this other than the fact that Sirius's 
response to Priori Incantatem makes it clear that it is very rare.  
He has never heard of it.  Part of the reason for the rarity may be 
that the spells have to be said simulaneously; it is "against one 
another" that the wands can't work properly; that doesn't mean that 
Voldemort can't cast an effective spell against Harry just because 
Harry happens to be *holding* a brother wand.  Had Harry been a 
second later with his "expelliarmus!" he'd be dead, IMHO.  But the 
other reason it's rare is that it's something only a brother wand can 
do.  Therefore what Amos Diggory does to Harry's wand can't be the 
same thing; it must be lesser in some way.

Another distinction that *is* supported by canon is that the spell 
Amos Diggory does seems only to be able to conjure up the very last 
spell performed by the wand.  Say a quick "lumos" after you've 
conjured the Dark Mark and no one will be able to dig out the 
evidence, unless he/she has the brother to your wand.

As for the Latin difference between the two PIs, I'm clueless.  We 
have plenty of Classics scholars around here, though.

Amo, Amat, Amy Z




From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com  Thu Feb 28 20:31:57 2002
From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:31:57 -0000
Subject: Sirius' wand
In-Reply-To: <a5lndn+iidh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5m43t+t8d1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35882

Mercia wrote:
> On the slightly different matter of Sirius' lost wand, it is quite 
> right that he 'borrowed' wands in the Shrieking Shack. But in that 
> case I wonder how he was planning to kill Peter before getting access 
> to a wand.
<snip her own theories>
> 
> Mercia

We know that he had a knife with him: the one he used to slash the Fat 
Lady's portrait and Ron's bed-drapes (or whatever you call them), so i 
always assumed he was going to get Peter to transform back into human 
and slit his throat.

Again Mercia:
> Presumably now he is 
> going to be lying low with Lupin, Remus can acquire one for him. 
> Although if the wand chooses the wizard sending someone else to buy 
> one for you would be less than ideal. How in that case could Sirius 
> get a wand? Do you think there might be black market dealers in wands 
> in the WW who will supply wands to shady characters no questions 
> asked?
> 
> Mercia

I'd imagine that he can buy one himself. After all, he did buy the 
broom for Harry in PoA, and Newander does not strike me as particularly 
prickly when choosing his customers (remember his phrase "Horrible, but 
great things nonetheless"? He was actually proud of selling his wand to 
an assassin, so he wouldn't mind giving another wand to another 
potentially great wizard).

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf





From cindysphynx at home.com  Thu Feb 28 20:34:47 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:34:47 -0000
Subject: The Big Bangers and Neville
In-Reply-To: <a5m24d+be13@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5m497+gi2l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35883

Kimberly wrote:

>Seriously, though - how is Neville's 
> story any more talk show-y or less bangy than Harry's, (aside from 
> the fact that Harry's still in constant conflict)?  

I think Faith's version of Neville's backstory, while Faithful, is a 
great deal less Bangy than Harry's.  I mean, Harry's backstory is a 
Cherry Bomb -- big, bad, unpredictable and dangerous.  Neville's 
backstory is just a sparkler -- initially appealling, kind of 
pleasant to hold, but it won't get anyone's attention really, and it 
eventually kind of fizzles out -- the kind of thing a small child 
can manage on her own. :-)

How much Bangier is Harry's backstory?  Well, we all know almost all 
of it, so I won't repeat the whole thing here.  But we know we have 
a toddler who basically gets blasted out of his mother's arms, on 
Halloween, no less.  We know the whole house is destroyed around his 
tender head, but still he triumphs against the Most Powerful, Most 
Evil, Most Forgetful Dark Wizard ever.  We know he gets the standard 
Disney Cinderella treatment at the Dursleys, including being left on 
the doorstep with a terse note pinned to him.  Lots of backstory 
fireworks there, I think, and Harry's story hasn't even really 
started yet.

This suggests to me that JKR is . . . a closeted Banger.  Her 
natural instinct is toward the Big Bang.  Witness Moody's entrance 
in GoF: Moody is a frightful mess, lightening is flashing (not once 
but twice), his leg is clunking, his eye is swiveling.  Witness 
Sirius' entrance in PoA:  Sirius is a frightful mess, and his first 
line is "Expelliarmus."  JKR *loves* a big ol' Bang if she can get 
it.  

In spite of her Big Bang tendencies, it is possible that JKR hasn't 
conceived of any Big Bang backstory for Neville.  After all, 
*everybody* can't have a Big Bang Backstory.  Maybe there are only a 
few to go around.  Hagrid is certainly going to get one, what with 
all the hints about Giants in GoF.  Harry already has one.  Maybe 
there's no room for Neville to have an elaborate Bangy backstory.

Sheez, I hope that isn't true.  If JKR tossed in that bit in GoF 
about the fate of Neville's parents just to wind me up, and if she 
doesn't go somewhere with it, well . . . she would never do such a 
thing to me.

Would she?

> Cindy, shoulders aslump and head hanging, writes:
> > 
> > This is the polar opposite of both Big Bang and Steady State. 
> 

Kimberly wrote:

> ::Giggles forgotten, Kimberly bites her lip in concentration and 
> looks around for a third pole that could somehow be the opposite 
of 
> *two* other poles.::

Uh, yeah.  Right.  The Third Pole.  I meant to say that.  I meant 
Polar Opposite in the sense of being exactly at the mid-point 
between Big Bang and Steady State.  It's a math thing, I think.  :-)

Cindy (who will *never* stop laughing if any of our insane 
backstories turns out to be true)





From bonnie at niche-associates.com  Thu Feb 28 20:38:49 2002
From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:38:49 -0000
Subject: Fudge is Way Evil and I have the acronyms to prove it
In-Reply-To: <a5llq7+67ve@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5m4gp+7uvj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35884

Dicentra wrote:
> > But because few Potterverse characters turn out to be what
> > Harry originally thinks they are, I have to anticipate some kind of
> > revelation later on. Not so much because I don't believe Harry's
> > interpretation to be valid, but because JKR likes to yank the rug 
> out
> > as often as possible.
> > 
And then continues:
> > I think that Big Trouble is definitely what we're in for, but as I
> > stated earlier, JKR rarely lets us maintain a particular impression 
> > of a character for long.
> > 
Naama throws down the gauntlet:
> Okay. This is one of my pet peeves. I've commented on this a few 
> times (way back) but didn't get much response. So I'll just say it 
> again (in the most provocative way I can :-)) :
> 
> MOST Pottervers characters turn out to be exactly what Harry 
> originally thinks they are. Moreover, once a character has been 
> established s/he NEVER surprises us as far as his/her basic qualities 
> go. If you'll think back to the books, you'll see that all the 
> characters who surprised us were part of each book's plot and the 
> twist in our perception of them serves and is part of the twist in 
> the book's plot.

<snip proof points, all good.>
> 
> Apart from these twists, that are very closely tied each specific 
> book's plot, NO other characters change in any significant way 
> (particularly the Good-Bad affiliation). Even characters such as 
> Lupin, who seem suspicious for a while, once their innocence has been 
> established, do not change. 
<a bit of snippage>
> No member of the regular cast (so far, of course) has surprised us. 
> So, if I apply this to Fudge, I'd say that (as a member of the 
> regular cast) he is precisely what he seems to be. Lacking in moral 
> courage, tending to avoid nasty realities (remember that "you must 
> love each other.. er.. deep down"?) but not affiliated with Evil.
> 
> Naama, hoping for some reaction

Dicentra obligingly reacts:
You make an excellent point about who is misperceived and who isn't.
And as far as Books 1-4 are concerned, you are spot on. However, JKR
has stated that Book 4 signals a watershed in the series, chiefly
regarding the issue of Harry being protected. He has been, but no longer.

I think that with the return of Voldemort, the landscape of the
characters is going to change dramatically. As during the first Reign
of Terror, people are not going to know whom to trust. It makes sense
to me that many of the apparently benign members of the regular cast
will resume their old loyalties, and in some cases it will be a
surprise (as was *not* the case with Lucius Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle,
etc.). It also makes sense to me that part of Harry's future peril
will come at the hands of someone he has heretofore trusted. Of
course, it's possible that Fudge is not one of those people, but it's
also possible that he is. I cast my vote for Fudge as someone who
might put Harry in danger because of what I think I've seen in the text.

--Dicentra, who fervently hopes that NOT ONE of the predictions,
speculations, or theories presented in this forum and others turns out
to be true, including her own





From pennylin at swbell.net  Thu Feb 28 20:54:23 2002
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:54:23 -0600
Subject: Percy!
References: <a5kcho+9a6m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3C7E98FF.6090509@swbell.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35885

Hi --

>I argued:
> 
>  > First let me just say that if we're not supposed to like Percy, then
> we are likewise not supposed to like Molly.  Percy is Molly re-made
> IMHO.

Amy responded:

> 
> <nine positive Percy moments compiled by Eileen and Penny snipped>
> 
> I agree that all of them are genuinely positive (those who think Percy
> isn't grief-stricken by Ginny's kidnapping should reconsider any plans
> for a career in grief counseling).  But Percy is like Molly?!  Yes,
> she dotes on him, and yes, he's like her in various ways.  But in
> terms of the positive-to-negative ratio of their descriptions, they
> aren't remotely comparable.

Au, contraire.  Well, I suppose it is subjective after all.  <g>  I 
think JKR definitely intends to convey that Molly is bossy, fussy, a 
worrier, a person who follows the "Rules" at all times -- gee, does that 
sound like anyone else we know?  :--)

But, back to the positive-negative ratio.  Yes, Percy gets adjectives 
applied to his dialogue such as "pompously," or "irritated" and the 
like.  Molly doesn't necessarily, IIRC, have similar negative 
descriptive words applied to her dialogue & interactions, but the end 
result is the same.  Harry at one point thinks that Percy has puffed 
himself up in a way that reminds Harry rather forcefully of Molly.

I think it might also depend on how one views her mothering style.  If 
asked to choose absolutely, do I *like* Molly or *dislike* Molly, I'd 
probably have to say that I like her overall.  This is mainly because of 
her interactions with Harry and how *he* feels about her though.  I do 
dislike the way she interacts with her children in some ways.  With 
Bill, she seems fond but a bit meddlesome; with Charlie ... hmmm, no 
real opinion here; with Percy, she is fond & doting to the point of 
fairly obvious favoritism; with the Twins, she is definitely bossy, 
interfering & unappreciative of their strengths & ambitions; with Ron, 
she seems to be largely uninvolved or "absent" (she pays *far* more 
attention to Harry than to Ron, and someone wrote a really nice analysis 
some point back about how Molly's favoring Harry over her own son Ron 
might cause problems in the Harry/Ron relationship as well as the 
Molly/Ron relationship before all is said & done); and finally, with 
Ginny, I see her as smothering & over-protective.

I *don't* think Molly is written 100% positively; at least, my reactions 
to her have not always been positive.  Although, I'm saying on one hand 
that I love Percy as a character and on the other hand, I'm saying he's 
like Molly, who I don't like overly much.  Hmm... how to fix this 
inconsistency?  Okay ... I think it's that I see more of Percy's good 
qualities than of Molly's perhaps -- perhaps her negatives outweigh her 
positives in some sense for me, though not to the point where I would 
say that I dislike Molly.  Even though Percy is alternately described as 
pompous, irritating and all the rest of it, *I* still see the proud 
older brother cheering for Ron loudly at the end of the PS/SS banquet 
and the older brother who's obviously quite fond of Ginny in CoS and the 
older brother who, when he lets his guard down, is also quite fond of 
Ron.  Molly has good moments too -- but they seem to revolve around 
*Harry* rather than her own children (with the exception of Percy). 
Maybe that's it.  :::shrugs:::  I don't know that I can explain this 
little interpretation issue of mine at the moment.

When I did the quiz that matched you up with characters (check the links 
section &/or the Humongous Big File .. please do *not* write back with 
"Where do I find that quiz that Penny mentioned" or with your quiz 
results, which should be posted to OT-Chatter unless they can be worked 
into a canon-based post) -- Percy was #3 or #4 on my list.  Obviously, I 
identify strongly with Percy.

> 
> I really didn't phrase my request correctly.  The real task is not to
> list positive Percy moments, but to list *all* Percy moments and
> categorize them as positive, negative, or neutral so we can get a
> count <g>.

Well, *that* will have to wait until I have more time.  <g>  But, I will 
say that a mere count isn't necessarily going to give one the big 
picture.  Percy may have a one-line piece of dialogue that is described 
by JKR (through Harry's lens) as "pompous."  Does that make that a 
negative Percy moment?  Is that one line of dialogue, however delivered, 
enough to override something like Percy wading out into the Lake, face 
etched with concern over Ron?  I don't know that a strict "count" per se 
yields that much, though I'm game to do this at some point (as I 
mentioned, I'd still like to catalogue the Trio interactions in much the 
same way).

 
> I wish this were true, but how many readers would like someone like
> Percy if they knew him in person?  (Not I, so why do I have so much
> affection for him as a character?  Am I just perverse?  Or is it a
> chilling recognition that there but for the grace of God and a more
> secure sense of self go I?)

I would like him as a person (must be something about Pennys ... we like 
Percy).  I would.  Then again, I'm a mixture of Dumbledore, Hermione, 
Percy & McGonagall according to that quiz so there you go.  :--D

Cindy -- I do think it's very possible to like the Twins and like Percy. 
  I like them both.  Obviously, I like them for different reasons.  In 
real life though, I'm with Amber: I'd probably avoid the Twins, not 
wanting to find myself the butt of one of their jokes, and be all too 
happy to hang out with Percy.

I think there's been enough of a foundation laid with Percy to believe 
that he will be developed more as a character in the later books.  It 
seems reasonably obvious to me that it's being set up for young Percy to 
have to choose between "what is right and what is easy," to have to 
reconcile his strong ambitions with his underlying character and notions 
of what's right and wrong.  I take Cindy's point that there are a number 
of characters who *could* be developed alot more (and that fans would 
like to see developed more), and JKR can't possibly develop them *all* 
fully, even in 3 more books.  But, I think Percy is high up on the list 
of secondary characters who will be likely to receive fuller treatment 
in the next books.

Penny
(who's favorite Weasley is Percy and who will gladly trade further 
character development of Bill, Charlie, the Twins *and* Ginny in 
exchange for more Percy (giving up Ginny was, of course, no sacrifice 
for me))





From klhurt at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 28 21:00:46 2002
From: klhurt at yahoo.com (Kelly Hurt)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:00:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: To 'T' or Not to 'T' + GONERs
In-Reply-To: <F300Z3FZLvGVNvtL4wQ00003184@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20020228210046.88783.qmail@web14208.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35886

--- Liz Sager wrote:

>Ooh I know! In the tapes, they
>pronounce it "Voldemor" with a silent
>"t", in a pronunciation guide I found
>somewhere its "Voldemor", and in the
>movie it was "Voldemort" (with no "SH!
>Say You-Know-Who!"). Me very confused.

I instictively said Voldemort without the ending 'T' sound.  Then I
heard JKR herself in a radio interview (which I found online) say it
*with* the 'T' sound.  Now I have to retrain myself.

--- sirius_kase wrote:

>>(whose GONERs list keeps growing)
>Hey Kelly, what's a GONER?

I've honestly forgotten what the letters stood for (or even which list
I first saw it on) but, as you've probably guessed, it's a list of all
the characters I think will die by series end.

=====
Pensieve
A Harry Potter List for Adults
Low Traffic - High Quality
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pensieve

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com



From skelkins at attbi.com  Thu Feb 28 21:43:20 2002
From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:43:20 -0000
Subject: SHIP: E.L.G.I.N.M.A.R.B.L.E.S. (Signal to OT-Chatter)
In-Reply-To: <a5bk60+q0fv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5m89o+n7jb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35887

Charis Julia wrote:

> Therefore I would like to make it clear that 
> E.L.G.I.N.M.A.R.B.L.E.S. is offered with an open invitation for an 
> anarchistic carnage at it's expense. Wreak havoc guys!

Now, none of you really thought that I'd be able to resist this,
did you?  Like catnip to a kitten, that was.

Alas, having wreaked my havoc and anarch'd to my heart's content,
I now find that even *I* can not quite justify claiming my respose
as "canon-based" speculation any more.  It's just grown too absurd,
even for me.  So I've moved my reply onto OT-Chatter.  I hope that
people will feel free to follow me there.

> Oh, DOOOOOOM!

Oh, indeed!  ;-)

-- Elkins




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Feb 28 21:50:12 2002
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:50:12 -0000
Subject: After Volume Four (Filk)
Message-ID: <a5m8mk+2u25@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35888


After Volume Four
A filk by Pippin to the tune of The Beatles' When I'm Sixty Four
based on a suggestion by CMC


We're getting older, starting to swear
Almost  two years now
When will they be sending us a release date
How long do they think we can wait?
Two thousand two or two thousand three?
Not two thousand four!??
I wanna read it, I really need it
More than Volume Four

Oh Oh hurry  Joannie do -ahh
And when you get the word, email, owl or floo.

Every new rumor soon gets defused
What's a fan to do?
Build a Lego castle by the fireside
Take a broomstick toy for a ride.
Searching the websites digging for leads
Scuttlebutt galore
Madly the mouse clicks still there's no Phoenix 
After volume four. 

 Every day I check with Barnes and Noble and with Amazon
When will it appear
Hear me scream and rave
Oh, oh, I'm begging on my knees
Volume Five I crave

Go to the cafe, write us a line
even one or two
Who's the fan of Harry's that is going to die
Will Ron make Hermione cry
How many kids in Gryffindor dorm
Are there, less or more
Jo, feed my habit, don't quit, dagnabit
After volume four.






From moongirlk at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 28 21:52:23 2002
From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:52:23 -0000
Subject: FILK: "I Am the Very Model of an Anti-Hero Archetype"
In-Reply-To: <a5m2bi+anh6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5m8qn+rci1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35889

I know I probably shouldn't send this to the whole list, but I had to 
applaud you publicly - this is one of the best of all the fantastic 
filks I've seen on this list!
And I can't tell you how grateful I am for replacing the *other* 
image I had in my mind of Snape singing and dancing, wherein he had 
on tights and sang "What I did for Love".

kimberly 
Who would have tacked this onto her last post had she seen the filk 
before posting.


--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> I Am the Very Model of an Anti-Hero Archetype
> to the tune of "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General", from
> Pirates of Penzance
> http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/pirates/html/p13.mid
> 
> Scene: Enter SNAPE, swirling his cloak, followed by a chorus of
> SLYTHERINS
> 
> SNAPE:
> I am the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype,
> My condescending manner's guaranteed to make the heroes gripe,
> I hang out in a dungeon that a nicer guy would wither in,
> It doesn't bother me at all because I am a Slytherin.
> I always dress in black with a theatrical and stylish flair,
> It makes up for the fact that I don't brush my teeth or wash my 
hair.
> I work with smelly potions in an underground laboratory
> And have a gift for sarcasm and other snarky oratory.
> 
> SLYTHERINS:
> He has a gift for sarcasm and other snarky oratory,
> He has a gift for sarcasm and other snarky oratory,
> He has a gift for sarcasm and other snarky oratory!
> 
> SNAPE:
> I'm biased toward Malfoy and the other kids in Slytherin,
> I terrorize Longbottom into quiverin' and ditherin',
> In short I can assure you that I more than live up to the hype
> Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype.
> 
> SLYTHERINS:
> In short we can assure you that he more than lives up to the hype
> Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype.
> 
> SNAPE:
> I have an evil history that's murky and mysterious,
> I have a vicious grudge against that bloody bastard Sirius,
> I torment Harry Potter every opportunity I get,
> But when he is imperiled I am always there to save the brat.
> I was a double-agent in the previous Death Eater war,
> And now I go again to risk my scrawny neck for Dumbledore,
> Exactly what I'm doing, only JKR can say for sure,
> But if I'm caught I'll probably get Crucio'd by Voldemort.
> 
> SLYTHERINS:
> But if he's caught he'll probably get Crucio'd by Voldemort,
> But if he's caught he'll probably get Crucio'd by Voldemort,
> But if he's caught he'll probably get Crucio'd by Voldemort.
> 
> SNAPE:
> I'm capable of standing up to hazards occupational,
> I'm capable of carrying a grudge cross-generational,
> In short I can assure you that I more than live up to the hype
> Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype.
> 
> SLYTHERINS:
> In short we can assure you that he more than lives up to the hype
> Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype.
> 
> SNAPE:
> In fact, when we discover the true history behind the Prank,
> And learn the real reasons for my quitting the Death Eater ranks,
> And why I knew Dark Magic by the time I first showed up at school,
> And whether I'll make Dumbledore look like a genius or a fool,
> And if Karkaroff mentored me the way he mentors Victor Krum,
> And if I ever really had a crush on Harry Potter's mum,
> In short, when Jo reveals the truth behind my nastiness and rage,
> You'll say a better archetype has never stalked across a page.
> 
> SLYTHERINS:
> In short, when Jo reveals the truth behind his nastiness and rage,
> You'll say a better archetype has never stalked across a page.
> 
> SNAPE:
> I'm  complicated and intense, heroic and despicable,
> My motives are so twisted, some would say they're inexplicable,
> In short I can assure you that I more than live up to the hype
> Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype.
> 
> SLYTHERINS:
> In short, we can assure you that he more than lives up to the hype
> Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype!
> 
> 
> Marina
> rusalka at i...




From boggles at earthlink.net  Thu Feb 28 22:06:02 2002
From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:06:02 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Identifiable flying object (was: Sirius's
 Motorcycle)
In-Reply-To: <12f.d2fb0db.29af7998@aol.com>
References: <12f.d2fb0db.29af7998@aol.com>
Message-ID: <f05010401b8a44c06492b@[66.32.51.46]>

No: HPFGUIDX 35890

At 7:16 AM -0500 2/28/02, Edblanning at aol.com wrote:
>
>Didn't Arthur Weasley frame the act?

Er - which act?  Ron and Harry stealing the car, or Sirius's "framing"?

>Hagrid had it last ( I've always wondered
>how he managed to sit on it. Perhaps he used an engorgement charm).

I'm sure Hagrid is used, by now, to balancing on things that are far 
too small for him.  Imagine the poor fellow trying to ride a 
Cleansweep!

>I suspect
>he discarded it in disgust on hearing of Sirius' supposed treachery. I have a
>vision of it trundling round the Forbidden Forest, where of course, it has
>now met the Flying Ford Anglia and is bringing up a little family of motor
>bikes with sidecars.

I'd always thought he'd returned it, as he said he would - so either 
it's sitting at Sirius's old house, patiently waiting, or it's been 
taken into custody by the MoM and is in a crate in some warehouse-23 
somewhere.

>The Beauxbatons carriage couldn't be mistaken for a muggle artefact, which is
>the basis of the law.

Not at the moment, but at some point in the past it _could_ have 
been.  Everything we have seen used for flying thin the Potterverse 
either is a Muggle artifact or was one at some point.

Harrumph.  It seems to point up a lack of crativity on the wizarding 
world's part, doesn't it?  After all, when the Muggles finally 
decided to fly, they built something entirely new - hot air balloons, 
then airplanes.  But the wixards have to keep borrowing.  Now, 
presumably this was originally for security reasons - but that seems 
to have changed.

>You see, lots of us have oriental style carpets, but
>not so many of us have witch-type broomsticks. I do, as it happens, but it
>has shown no inclination to take off as yet.

Well, yes, I do too, for the obvious reasons.  But - and here is my 
point - the witch-style broom could easily have been mistaken for a 
Muggle artifact several centuries ago, and IIRC it mentions in QttA 
that this was, in fact, one of the reasons the broom was chosen as 
the method of conveyance - if Muggles searched one's house for 
wizarding stuff, a twig broom would be highly un-suspicious, looking 
as it did just like one's neighbor's broom.  The Potions cauldron 
would not have been distinguishable, in the same era, from the family 
cookpot.  Presumably the same thought process led the mages of the 
Middle East to enchant carpets and trap djinn in oil lamps.

At any rate, wouldn't it be a _better_ idea to allow flying Muggle 
artifacts?  Some Muggle who looks up and sees a flying Ford Anglia is 
going to wonder what they've been drinking, or try and remember if 
someone was filming a movie near there.  The same Muggle, upon seeing 
a flying broom, is going to think "Aha!  Witches!" before enumerating 
that day's libations.  The current Wizarding law seems geared towards 
the protection of Muggles from Wizard influence, rather than the 
concealment of the wizarding world from the Muggles.

>Again, I think the flying carpet
>law is recent. Someone (?Crouch) mentions having had one in the past.

In GoF Chapter 7, Crouch Sr. mentions that his grandfather had one. 
Given the extended lifespans, that might well have been over a 
century ago; we really can't tell from the exchange.

>Banning
>broomsticks would cause a major incident.

If the (gulp) chapter illustrations and (double gulp) movie are any 
evidence at all, modern Quiddich broomsticks couldn't be mistaken for 
antique brooms, anyway - they're far too streamlined to be any use at 
cleaning a floor.  QttA seems to support this, albiet weakly, in its 
chapter on modern racing broom design.

>My thoughts on broomsticks are far more prosaic, more to do with the 'ouch'
>factor. I mean, sitting on one...even if you can balance on it....well, isn't
>it just painful?

That's what the Cushioning Charm is for!  However, if you want 
another culture's take on flying a broom, in a wizaring culture that 
hasn't developed said charm yet, the anime _Magic User's Club_ 
depicts the posterior consequences in a humorous manner.  (Oh, dear, 
I seem to have mentioned anime on this list twice in two days; I must 
stop that.)

>Eloise, who has a tendency towards vertigo, doesn't like speed, has enough
>trouble with horses, even of the non-flying variety and  certainly wouldn't
>dream of trying a broomstick or a carpet. Far too scary.

I'm acrophobic myself.  Apportation seems a much better deal.

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



From cindysphynx at home.com  Thu Feb 28 22:17:00 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:17:00 -0000
Subject: Stagnant Characters (WAS Fudge is Way Evil and I have )
In-Reply-To: <a5llq7+67ve@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5ma8s+ulgt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35891

Naama wrote:

> Okay. This is one of my pet peeves. I've commented on this a few 
> times (way back) but didn't get much response. So I'll just say it 
> again (in the most provocative way I can :-)) :
> 
> 
> MOST Pottervers characters turn out to be exactly what Harry 
> originally thinks they are. Moreover, once a character has been 
> established s/he NEVER surprises us as far as his/her basic 
qualities 
> go. 

Hmmm.  I must have missed this subject the first time around.  
Perhaps I was actually getting some *work* done or something.  :-)

My opinion, though, is that HP characters change a lot, except when 
they don't.  :-)

What I mean is that we do have characters who change over the course 
of the four books without it being a huge plot twist.  Examples are:

Hermione.  Obviously, she is far from the bossy braggart she was 
(and Harry thought she was) in the first book.

Ginny.  Again, there's been plenty of growth here, thank goodness.  
How much giggling and blushing could we possibly endure?

Ron.  Seems much more confident than in the first book, and seems to 
question authority a lot more.  

Sirius.  As someone else pointed out, Sirius is *completely* 
different in PoA compared to GoF.  His transformation is so dramatic 
that it pushes the bounds of credibility for me.  But that's OK, 
because GoF Sirius is *much* easier to defend than PoA Sirius.

But then again, I have to wonder how much change we can really 
expect here.  The books take place over four consecutive years.  I'd 
guess that for many of us, our "basic qualities" haven't changed 
dramatically over the last four years.  In my case, I'd have to 
admit that my "basic qualities" may not have changed in decades. 
:-)  Is it realistic to expect HP characters to change dramatically 
in just four years, particularly when we are limited to the filter 
of Harry's POV?  

Indeed, I think I'd be the first to complain if Severus Snape 
started having warm and fuzzy compassionate moments.  It would seem 
out of character, because it *would* be out of character.  

Naama again:

>Even characters such as 
> Lupin, who seem suspicious for a while, once their innocence has 
been 
> established, do not change. 

There might be an exception to this observation.  Bagman is 
initially introduced as the harmless, affable retired jock.  Then we 
are signaled that he might be evil.  Then he turns out to be semi-
evil -- he swindles Fred and George and heads for the hills.  
Bagman, then, gets to wear three hats.

Crouch Sr. would be another exception.  We see him as upstanding and 
reputable.  Then he becomes suspicious (acting funny, mysterious 
disappearances).  Then he becomes a firm supporter of the Good Guys 
(Sirius' account of him in the cave).  Then he becomes dead.  :-)  I 
think we were certainly expected to be very suspicious of Crouch 
initially, though, and so we get some change and development until 
Crouch Sr., er, becomes a bone. 

Naama again:

>So, if I apply this to Fudge, I'd say that (as a member of the 
> regular cast) he is precisely what he seems to be. 

That's where I might have to take issue with you.  Yes, the *facts* 
surrounding Fudge are what they are.  But the *meaning* of those 
facts are, IMHO, open to debate.  I see Supreme Evil DE Fudge 
because some of his actions (his behavior at the entrance to the 
maze) can't be squared with that of bumbling bureaucrat.  

> Naama, hoping for some reaction

Cindy (always happy to oblige with a reaction or two)




From editor at texas.net  Thu Feb 28 22:21:22 2002
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:21:22 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] FILK: "I Am the Very Model of an Anti-Hero Archetype"
References: <a5m2bi+anh6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007001c1c0a6$424978e0$7e7d63d1@texas.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 35892

I am truly sorry, I am. But I can't help myself, this is a true work of
genius and must be saluted as such, even though I have absolutely nothing of
substance to add. Bravo, bravo, bravo! This one's getting printed out and
stuck on the wall above my desk. At home *and* at work.

--Amanda

----- Original Message -----
From: "marinafrants" <rusalka at ix.netcom.com>
To: <HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:01 PM
Subject: [HPforGrownups] FILK: "I Am the Very Model of an Anti-Hero
Archetype"


> I Am the Very Model of an Anti-Hero Archetype
> to the tune of "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General", from
> Pirates of Penzance
> http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/pirates/html/p13.mid
>
> Scene: Enter SNAPE, swirling his cloak, followed by a chorus of
> SLYTHERINS
>
> SNAPE:
> I am the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype,
> My condescending manner's guaranteed to make the heroes gripe,
> I hang out in a dungeon that a nicer guy would wither in,
> It doesn't bother me at all because I am a Slytherin.
> I always dress in black with a theatrical and stylish flair,
> It makes up for the fact that I don't brush my teeth or wash my hair.
> I work with smelly potions in an underground laboratory
> And have a gift for sarcasm and other snarky oratory.
>
> SLYTHERINS:
> He has a gift for sarcasm and other snarky oratory,
> He has a gift for sarcasm and other snarky oratory,
> He has a gift for sarcasm and other snarky oratory!
>
> SNAPE:
> I'm biased toward Malfoy and the other kids in Slytherin,
> I terrorize Longbottom into quiverin' and ditherin',
> In short I can assure you that I more than live up to the hype
> Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype.
>
> SLYTHERINS:
> In short we can assure you that he more than lives up to the hype
> Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype.
>
> SNAPE:
> I have an evil history that's murky and mysterious,
> I have a vicious grudge against that bloody bastard Sirius,
> I torment Harry Potter every opportunity I get,
> But when he is imperiled I am always there to save the brat.
> I was a double-agent in the previous Death Eater war,
> And now I go again to risk my scrawny neck for Dumbledore,
> Exactly what I'm doing, only JKR can say for sure,
> But if I'm caught I'll probably get Crucio'd by Voldemort.
>
> SLYTHERINS:
> But if he's caught he'll probably get Crucio'd by Voldemort,
> But if he's caught he'll probably get Crucio'd by Voldemort,
> But if he's caught he'll probably get Crucio'd by Voldemort.
>
> SNAPE:
> I'm capable of standing up to hazards occupational,
> I'm capable of carrying a grudge cross-generational,
> In short I can assure you that I more than live up to the hype
> Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype.
>
> SLYTHERINS:
> In short we can assure you that he more than lives up to the hype
> Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype.
>
> SNAPE:
> In fact, when we discover the true history behind the Prank,
> And learn the real reasons for my quitting the Death Eater ranks,
> And why I knew Dark Magic by the time I first showed up at school,
> And whether I'll make Dumbledore look like a genius or a fool,
> And if Karkaroff mentored me the way he mentors Victor Krum,
> And if I ever really had a crush on Harry Potter's mum,
> In short, when Jo reveals the truth behind my nastiness and rage,
> You'll say a better archetype has never stalked across a page.
>
> SLYTHERINS:
> In short, when Jo reveals the truth behind his nastiness and rage,
> You'll say a better archetype has never stalked across a page.
>
> SNAPE:
> I'm  complicated and intense, heroic and despicable,
> My motives are so twisted, some would say they're inexplicable,
> In short I can assure you that I more than live up to the hype
> Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype.
>
> SLYTHERINS:
> In short, we can assure you that he more than lives up to the hype
> Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype!
>
>
> Marina
> rusalka at ix.netcom.com
>
>
>
>       Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>             ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> ________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________
>
> Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
> http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin
>
> Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material
from posts to which you're replying!
>
> Is your message...
> An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements.
> Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
> Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups.
> None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
> Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods --
MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com
>
> Unsubscribing? Email hpforgrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>




From eb3g at ivillage.com  Thu Feb 28 22:04:47 2002
From: eb3g at ivillage.com (jillily3g)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:04:47 -0000
Subject: Godric's Hollow
Message-ID: <a5m9hv+gudg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35893

As a newbie, very unsure of what I'm doing, first I want to apologize 
for sending my first post without any text. [embarassed blushing]

I have been driving my family crazy, hunting through months of posts 
for ones that interest me, as well as trying to make sure I don't 
post something repetitious, but honestly, I can't spend any more time 
sorting right now, so hope this passes inspection... [The mind 
boggles at the volume of information here!]

To get back on topic, I noticed in re-reading _Quidditch Through the 
Ages_ that Bowman Wright ("a skilled metal-charmer"), who invented 
the Golden Snitch, also lived in Godric's Hollow. This would have to 
be sometime in the second half of the 1300's as I read it. 

I just thought this was interesting and I would enjoy reading 
comments on it.

Beth





From eb3g at ivillage.com  Thu Feb 28 22:11:22 2002
From: eb3g at ivillage.com (jillily3g)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:11:22 -0000
Subject: Hermione's Parents
Message-ID: <a5m9ua+4sge@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35894

We know that the Dursley's have a cover story for Harry's absences to 
Hogwarts, but what do you think Hermione's parents tell people. And 
why aren't parents or other relatives allowed to visit (that we've 
seen), other than for unusual events like the Tri-wizard Tournament? 
If you were Hermione's parents, wouldn't you have liked to have seen 
your daughter get rescued? The only time we've seen her parents was 
at Kings' Cross, looking rather nervous, IIRC. What exactly were they 
nervous about?

Beth





From skelkins at attbi.com  Thu Feb 28 22:32:09 2002
From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:32:09 -0000
Subject: The Big Bangers and Neville
In-Reply-To: <a5eanj+l6m2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5mb5a+b9kj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35895

Elkins sloshes her way through the surf and stomps up onto the sand: 
dirty, dishevelled, soaking wet from the knees down, and with a 
nervous tic fluttering madly under her left eye.  Once above the high-
tide line, she collapses onto the beach and fervently kisses dry 
land, then rolls onto her back to stare blankly up at the sky.

After a moment, she notices Cindy and Eileen both looking down at her.

"Oh," she mutters.  "Don't ask.  Just do *not* ask."

Sitting up, Elkins notices a pink candy heart still clinging stickily 
to one elbow. She peels it off and tosses it to one side, shuddering.
It is immediately snapped up by a passing seagull.

"Really," Elkins repeats.  "I mean it.  You do *not* want to know.  
It was...it was horrible.  Just horrible.  There were SHIPs 
involved.  And pink things."

She wraps herself tightly in her featherboas, then looks around the 
beach, frowning.

"Say," she says.  "Has either of you by any chance seen my Snitch 
controls lying around here anywhere?"

-----------------

Cindy:

> I thought we decided we could still be friends.  Besides, I see 
> that you have rebounded to George, and deep down I'm very happy for 
> you.  Really, I am.  I'll just have to remember what we had.  Or at 
> least, what I *thought* we had. 

We'll...

<Elkins' voice breaks.  She turns quickly away>

We'll always have Avery in the DMC.

> I sense a serious misunderstanding about exactly how Big the 
> Reverse Memory Charm can be.  Neville as a small toddler who later 
> gets a Reverse Memory Charm is Big.  Heck, it's *Huge*.  

Ah!  Well, if Neville can be a *toddler* at the time, then that's 
*different!*

The aspect of Neville-with-Reverse-Memory-Charm that I was really 
objecting to, you see, was your "it *has* to be 1981, because Neville 
*has* to have been but an infant at the time, he just *has* to have 
been" stance.

You seemed to be taking a rather firm stand against the entire idea 
of Traumatized Neville, and frankly, that just offended my 
featherboas.

> So you can certainly have the drama of toddler Neville cowering in 
> the corner, flinching, sucking his thumb, whatever you want. . . . 
> Reverse Memory Charm Neville suffers, you see.  I'm giving Neville 
> a *tremendous* amount of pain.  I'm enhancing his memory so that he 
> hears the shrieks of his parents *every darn day*.  

Well!

<Elkins tosses her bloody featherboa over one shoulder with a 
satisfied air>

Okay, then!  So long as he can be a toddler.  It was that infant 
thing that was really the sticking point for me, you see.  So can we 
call it 1983, then, and forget all about that canonically-suggested-
but-nowhere-actually-stated "it happened in 1981" nonsense?

> Not only has the Reverse Memory Charm wrecked his memory for things 
> like where he left his toad, it has caused him to repeatedly 
> experience his parents' torture in Dolby and Technocolor.  Reverse 
> Memory Charm Neville has to be Tough to avoid losing his mind 
> completely, if you ask me.  

Sounds good to me.  I have *never* wanted Neville to join the ranks 
of SYCOPHANTS. I *want* Neville to be Tough.  Tough...but weird.  
Weird Tough.  In fact, what I want most for Neville is for him to 
develop -- yes, you guessed it -- *Edge.*  

So if Reverse-Memory-Charm Neville can be a toddler, then I'm cool 
with it.  But earlier, you seemed to be all hung up on this 1981 
thing, and that just wasn't flying for me.

<I objected to Reverse-Memory-Charm-Neville on the grounds that it 
was--snicker--unsupported by canon.>

> OK, now, that really hurt.  Aside from the fact that you've come 
> right out and said I'm squeamish and therefore not Tough, you're 
> saying the Reverse Memory Charm doesn't exist in canon.  Ouch!  

Forgive me.  People sometimes say hard things when under pressure. 
And besides, you *know* how Edgy I can get sometimes.  Especially on 
the subject of timelines.  Timelines put everyone a bit on edge, 
don't they?

It was that insistence on 1981 that did it.  1981, 1981...I just 
*hate* that year 1981!  As if 1981 doesn't hog up enough of the 
timeline already.  Some people just seem to want to wrap up the 
entire aftermath of the whole darned Voldemort's Reign of Terror 
backstory in only two short months.  Bah to that, I say.  Bah!

I say, it's about time we let 1982 and 1983 see some action.  They 
were good years, they deserve a bit of excitement too.  Why should 
1981 get all the glory?

Cindy:

> Reverse Memory Charms are not *directly* mentioned in canon, true.  
> You know, kind of the way Avery's backstory isn't directly 
> mentioned in canon.  <g> But the Reverse Memory Charm *clues* are 
> there.  

At this point, Eileen chimes in:

> Take that, Elkins! 

<Elkins stares at her in wounded disbelief>

Boy.  You really *do* just go with the biggest bully on the 
playground, don't you?

<suddenly remembers that she herself gave Eileen her very own 
SYCOPHANTS badge and slaps herself on forehead as comprehension 
dawns -- along with a vast quantity of sympathy>

Oh!  Riiiiiiight!  I'd forgotten all about that.  Well...yeah, okay.  
Okay. Fair enough.  That's quite all right, Eileen.  I really do 
understand.  I guess I'd probably do the same to you, given half the 
chance.  

Cindy, Toughly ignoring this minor SYCOPHANTIC spat, continues:

> And you said you were agnostic on the subject of Memory Charms and 
> were willing to work with me if I'd go along on Avery.  I feel 
> soiled somehow.  

Well, that was before you showed any willingness to bend on the whole 
timeline issue, wasn't it.  But now that you've offered me a 
traumatized *toddler* Neville, as well as a gut-wrenched Moody and a 
remorseless Crouch and a Great Big Bloody Dramatic Battle between 
Moody and the DEs -- it's every bit as good as a Bloody Ambush! -- 
I'm in again.

Just don't try to make Neville an infant when it all happens, and 
I'll follow you wherever you lead.  Really.  I'm all yours.

Well...so long as you don't step on George's toes.  

And...well...except for maybe when it comes to that Toadkeeper 
thing.  I just don't know about that whole Toadkeeper idea.

<brightly>

But aside from that, I'm your willing slave, Cindy.  Honest, I am.  
Just keep the Big Bangs coming when it comes to Neville, Aurors and 
DEs, and I'm, er, *almost* all yours!


Eileen expresses her own SweetGeorgian concerns:

> But we can still be Georgians and believe in bloody ambushes, can't 
> we? Otherwise, you and Elkins are pulling me apart. 

<patting Eileen reassuringly on the shoulder>  

But of *course* we can!  George himself may not like it very much, 
but we don't need *him* anymore.  We have an *acronym* now!

So long as we don't start ascribing any Bangy motivations to 
*Snape's* big decisions, then we can have as many tortured toddlers 
and anguished Aurors and Great Bloody Ambushes as we like, and still 
wear our SWEETGEORGIANISM badges with pride!  But...um...

<nervous glance out to sea, lowered voice>

But we should probably watch out for that Captain Tabouli.  She can 
be just *vicious.* And sneaky, too.  I don't know how you sleep 
nights on that ship, Eileen.  I really don't.

Eileen expresses her preference for a Tortured!Neville scenario:

> Why would the Lestranges leave Neville out of the picture, Cindy? 
> They tortured Mrs. Longbottom to make Frank talk, why would they 
> leave his little toddler out of the business? Because Florence 
> Lestrange was a kind maternal woman in whom Neville awakened the 
> thought of a lost life as Mrs. Sirius Black barefootedly baking 
> cookies for the hordes of little Blacks? No, I don't think so. 

> "You won't talk? Well, do you want to see your child tortured?"

Cindy squirms squeamishly:

> OK, you're going to *force* me to think about little babies being 
> tortured, aren't you? 

Eeeeeee-yup!  We sure are.  (And he's not a baby, dammit.  He's a 
toddler.)  

Here, Cindy.  Have a featherboa.  Have two: they're warm, and made 
from murdered owls.

Cindy:

> I have to address this, or I will be heckled as "squeamish" and I 
> will lose all credibility (or what smidgen of credibility I have 
> left). So here we go.

> You see, the reason Mrs. Lestrange leaves Neville alone during the 
> attacks is that she doesn't see him as a risk. He is too young to 
> identify her, she thinks. 

Nah.  I think she just didn't know he was there.  He was hidden in 
the closet.  I make the case for the closet for two reasons: (a)
every cheesy issue-of-the-week made-for-TV-movie ever written that
deals with early childhood trauma *always* has the kid hidden in the
closet, and (b) it, uh, provides a literary parallel with Harry's own 
early childhood experience.

So it's canonical to have Neville in the closet.  Really it is.

Cindy:

> We want our DEs to be grey, right?

We sure do!  Or at least, I do.  And that's why, as sweet as I found 
Eileen's suggestion that it might have been Avery who saved him, I'm 
nonetheless going to plump here yet again for my favorite Sympathy 
For the Devil Theory: Neville Owed a Life Debt to Barty Crouch.

No, it wasn't Avery who saved poor Neville.  Avery was too busy 
keeping a look-out for the Aurors and trying not to be sick.  Or 
perhaps participating while under the Imperius Curse, depending on 
which variety of Fourth Man you favor.  And it wasn't Mrs. Lestrange 
who spared him either, are you kidding?  As we all know, Florence is
Ever So Evil now, thanks to Sirius toying with her affections like 
that back in her school days.  And it sure wasn't Mr. Lestrange.  He 
doesn't even have a first name, so why would *he* spare Toddler 
Neville from torment?

Nope.  No, it had to be young Crouch.  I mean, think about it.  Given 
the *vast* quantities of information that we have now accumulated, 
through our irreproachable extrapolations from canon, about these 
four characters, which of them do you think would have had the most 
invested in the entire "don't judge children by their parents"
concept?  Which of them would had been the *most* likely to balk at 
the notion of a child being forced to suffer for his parents' sins?  
Which of them, throughout all of GoF, stands in as the thematic 
*representative* of the Apple-Fallen-Far-From-The-Tree?  Which of 
them is practically a personification of the principle of parricide 
itself?

It had to have been Crouch.  It just had to have been.  This was 
pre-Azkaban, pre-Imperius Crouch, remember.  He wasn't quite so 
damaged back then.  Bouncing Ferret Crouch was still years in his 
future.  Back then, he still had some qualms about the whole punish-
child-for-parents'-sins thing.

Yeah, I say that Crouch spared Neville.  He came across him huddling 
in the closet where he had been hidden, took one look into those big 
pure-blooded eyes, and then closed the door, went back to the others, 
stared meaningfully at the Longbottoms, and said: "No, sorry, 
couldn't find the brat anywhwere.  Guess they were telling the truth 
after all.  The boy just isn't here."

Which explains, of course, why it is that the Longbottoms don't 
recognize Neville. They were forced to spend so much mental energy 
during their ordeal trying to keep it in mind that the kid wasn't 
*there* that it's just about the only thing that they now *do* 
remember about him.  They remember that "the child is not here."  So 
whenever Neville goes to visit them in the hospital, they look right 
at him and repeat dully: "My son isn't here.  He's not here."

There.  I don't know if that's Big enough for the Bangers, but I 
think it's probably at least horrid enough to satisfy everybody's 
featherboas.

And it meshes fairly well with Reverse-Memory-Charm Neville, too.  
Under the influence of the Reverse Memory Charm, Neville fingered all 
four of them, right?  And yet both Dumbledore and Sirius seem highly 
dubious about Crouch's guilt.  Clearly there was something about 
Neville's testimony under the Reverse Memory Charm that didn't seem 
very convincing, at least when it came to the question of Crouch's 
guilt.  (And, er, Avery's, of course.  We can't forget Avery.)  Must 
have been the life-debt.  The poor kid was all torn, what with the 
trauma, and the Reverse Memory Charm, and then the life-debt to 
Crouch on *top* of all of that -- it just muddled his testimony all 
to pieces.

After all, life-debt to Crouch would explain so much!  It would 
explain why despite his usual timidity, Neville was willing to 
volunteer information about such a traumatic subject as the Cruciatus 
curse in Fake Moody's class.  It would explain why, in spite of 
being absolutely terrified of the man, and in spite of showing 
obvious signs of having been weeping when he returns from his little 
tea party with him, he nonetheless strikes Harry as looking
"cheered" -- and yet then spends that entire night lying awake in his 
bed.  Would a simple word of praise about Herbology and the loan of a 
book have had quite *that* dramatic an effect, do you think?  Would 
it have the power to inspire such obvious and deep-seated 
ambivalence?  

No, the poor kid's seriously conflicted when it comes to Moody.  He 
just doesn't know *what* to make of their relationship.

I'm tellin' ya, it's gotta be one of them life-debt thingies.  Just 
gotta be.

Well...that and strange feedback from his super secret time-shift 
powers.  But that's a subject for my next post, in which I try to 
provide the Big Bang Battleship with a satisfactory Neville 
backstory...


-- Elkins, who really is going to get back to serious canonical 
discussion of these books one of these days.  Really she is.




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Thu Feb 28 22:37:35 2002
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:37:35 -0000
Subject: Percy!
In-Reply-To: <3C7E98FF.6090509@swbell.net>
Message-ID: <a5mbff+8v2k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35896

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce <pennylin at s...> wrote:
> with the Twins, she is definitely bossy, 
> interfering & unappreciative of their strengths & ambitions; 

Yeah, wanting hurt people (Dudley), frighten the emotionally troubled 
(Ginny), torment their siblings (Percy), risk all their money on the 
Quidditch cup, flunk their exams, and otherwise cavort in 
unrestricted illegality.

I like the twins, just as Percy does in his heart of heart, but I 
think Molly's firm stand is necessary with those two, and even they 
know it. I just love that scene where they come home and she 
says, "If you had died, and my last words had been..." which Fred and 
George use to their advantage. I got the feeling that there was a 
very warm relationship between the twins and Molly, one that actually 
isn't as demonstrated with the other children. Percy, for example, is 
appreciated, favoured, and relied upon, but there isn't that easily 
displayed emotional bond you see with the twins and their mother. 
Fred and George infuriate Molly, but they also make her laugh.

> When I did the quiz that matched you up with characters Percy was 
#3 or #4 on my list.  Obviously, I 
> identify strongly with Percy.

Having been ranked as a #1 match with Percy, I agree. He is someone 
I'd love to be around, unlike Fred and George. Most of my venom 
towards the infernal twins (whom I do like) probably comes from the 
fact that I see the world through Percy's eyes. When I was a camp 
counsellor, the kids thought of me exactly like Ron and Harry think 
of Percy, I can tell you. At the table, I always try to wrench the 
conversation to myself, my family: seven younger brothers, tells me. 
In the style of "You know, the top-secret one." 

But what revealed to me that I loved Percy was the line in Prisoner 
of Azkaban, about Percy outlining reforms to law enforcement and 
justice, and only Penny listening to them. Except that I wanted to be 
Penny, listening to him. Not because I had crush on Percy, but 
because it sounded like the most interesting conversation going on at 
Hogwarts (minus HRH's sorting out of the secret backstory among 
themselves). Percy was talking ideas, politics: all those things I 
craved as a teenager, but rarely met anyone who was interested in 
them. Percy may have been talking absolute rot, but he was talking 
about interesting things. 

And, even more interesting, how many of you would have liked to hear 
more about the "International Ban on Dueling"? Harry and Ron were 
bored, but I can tell you I would have lapped it up, just I lap up 
long articles about the Geneva Convention. Oh yes, I would have got 
along with Percy. 

>Percy may have a one-line piece of dialogue that is described 
> by JKR (through Harry's lens) as "pompous."  

Yes. Percy is often right in the "pompous" lines, and that's why they 
call it pompous. I know all about that from brothers who thought it 
was pompous to forbid them from pouring gasoline over a fir bough, 
and then using it as a flaming torch. 

> I take Cindy's point that there are a number 
> of characters who *could* be developed alot more (and that fans 
would 
> like to see developed more), and JKR can't possibly develop them 
*all* 
> fully, even in 3 more books.  But, I think Percy is high up on the 
list 
> of secondary characters who will be likely to receive fuller 
treatment 
> in the next books.

Exactly. Percy is even ahead of the Lestranges in my book. And JKR 
has promised that Percy's particular problem will be adressed in Book 
V. How on earth can she have Percy making huge decisions, and not 
develop him further. I don't see the Percy caricature holding for any 
of the choices.

Imagine:
"I've decided to throw my lot in with Dumbledore," said Percy 
pompously.
OR
"Oh well," said Fred. "Percy's joined Voldemort."
"Said it'd look good on his resume," smirked George.
OR 
"Could you be a bit more quiet?" Percy said crossly. "I'm working on 
waffling between good and evil. Oh, hello Harry."

No, there's a big choice to be made and by necessity the choice is 
going to tell us a lot more about Percy. 

Secondly, the Percy caricature is very funny, but it hides things. 
Ron is its foremost perpetuator. I'd love to get Hermione's opinion 
on Percy, btw. She doesn't seem so dead set against him, and it's 
illuminating to note that while they disagree over the house-elf 
issue, he's the only one interested enough to reply. 

For an example of an important scene, where the Percy caricature 
brushes things over, check "CoS", "You don't even care about Ginny." 
What Ron says to Percy is absolutely horrendous and un-called for, 
and Percy lashes back. But because it's the perfect prefect taking 
points from Gryffindor again, we forget this, and just laugh, instead 
of storing it up in our memory, as evidence of a severely strained 
relationship between the two. Then, when you get to GoF, and Ron is 
making some very disturbing remarks about Percy, one goes, "Where did 
this come from?" It's all there, but the Percy caricature masks it. 

The other problem with Ron as expert is that he is so obviously wrong 
about Percy. Percy will have a loyalty crisis, but it will be a 
loyalty crisis because he does love his family. He's actually the 
only Weasley to ever show pride in Ron. (Not that I think Ron is 
completely unappreciated by his family.) 

Lastly, about Percy. I don't like my Percy angsty. He's not. He 
laughs and smiles a good deal, even if he doesn't make many jokes. 
Remember the Christmas Ball where his jollity makes Les Miserables 
want to kill him. However, he does have problems. As many people have 
pointed out, he's the isolated Weasley, the one always on his own. He 
has no sibling of his own age. That's not a tragedy, but it does 
change things. Being the only girl in a family of boys approximates 
the same thing for me. Age and gender differences often mean that 
your interests are profoundly different from your siblings, even 
though you share a lot together. 

Secondly, it really is hard on people who don't enjoy duelling with 
picnic benches..... I don't know where the thought was going to go, 
except into a rant against my teenage brothers' duplo duels. :-) I 
usually storm into the basement, yelling at them to stop the racket, 
and why can't they ever do anything constructive? 

Ahhh, Fred and George. I know you. You are waiting for me the moment 
I get home with the old "There's something on your nose. Got you!" 
or "Look, I accidentally ran over your Harry Potter CD" and other 
suchpractical jokes. They also removed my candy from my boot on St. 
Nicholas's Day, and have been known to come in and explain that they 
just heard J.K. Rowling on the radio saying that Hermione will marry 
Viktor Krum, or anything else they think can produce a rage. 

OK, I can't hate Fred and George. They're part of my family too. 
Annoying, but essential, and still very loveable. 

> 
> Penny
> (who's favorite Weasley is Percy and who will gladly trade further 
> character development of Bill, Charlie, the Twins *and* Ginny in 
> exchange for more Percy (giving up Ginny was, of course, no 
sacrifice 
> for me))

Ditto! Ditto!

Eileen A.K.A. Percy Weasley




From rusalka at ix.netcom.com  Thu Feb 28 22:42:18 2002
From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:42:18 -0000
Subject: Stagnant Characters (WAS Fudge is Way Evil and I have )
In-Reply-To: <a5ma8s+ulgt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5mboa+76k5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35897

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

> But then again, I have to wonder how much change we can really 
> expect here.  The books take place over four consecutive years.  I'd 
> guess that for many of us, our "basic qualities" haven't changed 
> dramatically over the last four years.  In my case, I'd have to 
> admit that my "basic qualities" may not have changed in decades. 
> :-)  Is it realistic to expect HP characters to change dramatically 
> in just four years, particularly when we are limited to the filter 
> of Harry's POV?  

It depends on the age of the characters, I think.  I admit I haven't
changed much between the ages of 30 and 34, but I sure changed a hell
of a lot between 11 and 15, and still more between 15 and 19.  So
while I'd consider it out of character if Snape suddenly went all warm
and fuzzy or Remus Lupin started going around being mean to kittens
and little old ladies, I would also consider it perfectly reasonable
if, say, Neville Longbottom developed self-confidence after beating
Hermione on the Herbology OWLs, or the twins became more serious and
responsible as they worked to get their business off the ground.

However, a lot of things that have been called "changes" in the course
of this discussion really aren't changes at all; they're revelations
of new facts about the characters.  Bagman and Crouch didn't really
change as people during GoF -- we merely found out more and more about
them, allowing us to see a more complete picture of what they're
like.  If Fudge was revealed as a DE, it wouldn't be a change in his
character, but a revelation of something that's been true about him
for a long time.

Marina (who leans toward the "willfully blind politician" theory
herself)
rusalka at ix.netcom.com





From boggles at earthlink.net  Thu Feb 28 22:54:26 2002
From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:54:26 -0600
Subject: Twins And Percy, Intercontinental Wizard Travel, and Stagnant
 Characters
In-Reply-To: <a5lfr5+sija@eGroups.com>
References: <a5lfr5+sija@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <f05010402b8a45b1fd4da@[66.32.51.46]>

No: HPFGUIDX 35898

At 2:45 PM +0000 2/28/02, cindysphynx wrote:
>
>I know I have heard others say they don't like Fred and
>George because they don't appreciate their particular brand of
>humor, but I wonder if they find Percy more interesting.

Am I going to upset this discussion if I let on that I like George, 
kinda like Percy, and don't like Fred at all?  And that I 
half-suspect that George is the fan of Harry's who is doomed to die?

>And for what it is worth, Percy doesn't seem to have any Edge at
>all, and the jury is still out on whether Percy is Tough.  He seems
>to bounce around between "pompous" and "worried."  It's a rather
>harsh assessment, but there you have it.  Sorry, Percy fans.

Isn't there at least a _hint_ of Edge when Harry and Ron find Percy 
immersed in his copy of _Prefects Who Gained Power_ in CoS?

And surely someone who rushes off to force a group of Death Eaters to 
put the Muggles back down without hesitations, and returns with a 
bloody nose, has at least a modicum of Tough?

Of course, having said that, I admit that blatant Tough is a 
turn-*off* for me -  better it be subtle, IMHO.



At 2:12 PM -0500 2/28/02, Edblanning at aol.com wrote:
>And another thing What about intercontinental travel? How do they cover these
>distances? Surely too far to fly. Not everyone can apparate, and wouldn't it
>be risky? Surely not the floo network. Port keys? Is there a form of
>wizarding  long-distance mass transport? Invisible cruise ships, perhaps.

According to QTtA, it is possible to cross the Atlantic by broom now, 
and it was first accomplished in 1935.  Prior to that, they did, in 
fact, use ships, and perhaps the less broom-agile still do.  No 
mention of the ships being invisible, though; probably they're merely 
registered through a tiny island nation owned by a wizarding family 
(perhaps the Malfoys?).



At 10:17 PM +0000 2/28/02, cindysphynx wrote:
>But then again, I have to wonder how much change we can really
>expect here.  The books take place over four consecutive years.  I'd
>guess that for many of us, our "basic qualities" haven't changed
>dramatically over the last four years.  In my case, I'd have to
>admit that my "basic qualities" may not have changed in decades.
>:-)  Is it realistic to expect HP characters to change dramatically
>in just four years, particularly when we are limited to the filter
>of Harry's POV?

Have my basic qualities changed much over the past four years?  Well, 
not much.  A little, I'd like to think - if I've stopped growing, 
after all, I'm dying, IMHO.

How much did my basic qualities change during any given four years 
between age 11 and age 18?  By yards and yards!  Sometimes back and 
forth, wildly.

Does it make sense for the students to grow and change over the 
course of four books?  Sure.

Does it make sense for the adult characters?  Hmm.  Depends on the 
character.  In Sirius's case, I can justify it by claiming it's all 
the growth he didn't get in his twelve years in Azkaban all 
happenning over one summer.

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



From eb3g at ivillage.com  Thu Feb 28 22:50:11 2002
From: eb3g at ivillage.com (jillily3g)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:50:11 -0000
Subject: Neville and the stolen passwords
Message-ID: <a5mc73+sbug@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35899

I know that Neville's character was developed more in GoF, and that 
Harry finally became aware of Neville's background, but I'm still 
worried about him.

For one thing, he doesn't seem to have any friends to hang around 
with. This seems underscored by the fact that the fake Moody only 
comforted him with the thought that he'd share his Herbology insights 
with Harry, but of course Harry doesn't spend enough time with 
Neville to find out. He's spent most of his life as a suspected 
Squib, not a really respected member of the magic community, so I 
doubt he got much nurturing before he came to Hogwarts. (I'm reminded 
of the line from Marge's Christmas letter in "The Simpsons": "Well, 
we love Bart.") Somehow I imagine him being excited to find out he 
*is* a wizard and was accepted to Hogwarts, anticipating all he'll do 
and learn, and then being pretty much ostracized. Better than being 
with "Gran", perhaps, but not much.

And then there's the password episode. McGonagall makes such a ruckus 
over someone leaving the passwords "lying around" and it proves not 
to be the case. I would think that a bedside table would be private, 
and therefore an acceptable place to leave something private. But 
none of this ever comes out. Couldn't HHR have revealed after Sirius' 
escape that he admitted to stealing the passwords without implicating 
themselves in the escape? What a difference this could have made in 
the student body's impression of Neville!

Beth, who has always felt bad for the underdog





From potter at jmaclabs.com  Thu Feb 28 23:20:33 2002
From: potter at jmaclabs.com (JM)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 15:20:33 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Identifiable flying object / Pilots afraid of heights
References: <12f.d2fb0db.29af7998@aol.com> <f05010401b8a44c06492b@[66.32.51.46]>
Message-ID: <006601c1c0ae$86469660$ce64a8c0@fantasy>

No: HPFGUIDX 35900

> At 7:16 AM -0500 2/28/02, Edblanning at aol.com wrote:
> >
> >Didn't Arthur Weasley frame the act?
>
> Er - which act?  Ron and Harry stealing the car, or Sirius's "framing"?
>

The Muggle Protection Act I believe is attributed to Aurthur Weasly and
seems to be the one that banned enchantment of muggle artificacts since he
wrote the loophole that made his car legal.

> >The Beauxbatons carriage couldn't be mistaken for a muggle artefact,
which is
> >the basis of the law.
>
> Not at the moment, but at some point in the past it _could_ have
> been.  Everything we have seen used for flying thin the Potterverse
> either is a Muggle artifact or was one at some point.
>
> Harrumph.  It seems to point up a lack of crativity on the wizarding
> world's part, doesn't it?  After all, when the Muggles finally
> decided to fly, they built something entirely new - hot air balloons,
> then airplanes.  But the wixards have to keep borrowing.  Now,
> presumably this was originally for security reasons - but that seems > to
have changed.

I agree that originally it was for security reasons, but that in general
Wizards seem prefer hiding and minimal interaction. And I do think it was
Aurthur Weasly that banned the use of muggle artifacts, the department he
works in probably dealt more with incidents involving muggles getting a hold
of them... as it still does.

As for wizards copying Muggles... well, why not? Muggle devices have to
follow laws of physics, airplanes need wings to fly. Hot air balloons need
to be ... well... a balloon.

<snip of a lot of other interesting commentary>

>
> >Eloise, who has a tendency towards vertigo, doesn't like speed, has
enough
> >trouble with horses, even of the non-flying variety and  certainly
wouldn't
> >dream of trying a broomstick or a carpet. Far too scary.
>
> I'm acrophobic myself.  Apportation seems a much better deal.


Over 90% of pilots (in the US anyway where the vast majority of the world's
pilot's train) suffer from Acrophobia. Compared to 6-10% of the population.
Acrophobia tends to stem from a sense that there is a lack of control of the
situation while all the descriptions of flying a broomstick are that it
grants more control than pilotting a muggle plane.

Of course there's also the theory that pilots are control freaks to begin
with and that causes acrophobia instead of the control eliminating it.
*shrug*


--
JM
Who has trouble climbing a ladder but no trouble flying a plane.





From cindysphynx at home.com  Thu Feb 28 23:53:39 2002
From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:53:39 -0000
Subject: The Big Bangers and Neville
In-Reply-To: <a5mb5a+b9kj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a5mfu3+ogkk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 35901

Elkins offered:

> Ah!  Well, if Neville can be a *toddler* at the time, then that's 
> *different!*

Uh, I think we're still talking past each other.  A "baby" 
or "infant" is a child under the age of 1.  A toddler is, um, maybe 
age 1-3.  I'll admit to having been a little, uh, loose with the 
terminology at times.

OK.  So under my timeline, Neville is born sometime in 1980.  Let's 
pick the middle of 1980.  That makes him a proper toddler when the 
Potters are killed because he is 16 months old or so.  So if the 
torture happens ::Cindy pauses to think of a torture date that will 
give the greatest possible Bang:: on Christmas day 1981, Neville is 
18 months old, and still a toddler. 

So I can have 1981 and still have a toddler.  Can't I?

Besides, I just *hate* dragging out the timeline to put the capture 
of Mrs. Lestrange's gang into mid-1982 or, heaven forbid, 1983.  
Canon seems to suggest these things happened *fast*.  Big Bangers 
like things to happen fast, you see.  Nothing is more dull than a 
long, drawn out investigation of a crime.  Sheez, what does grief-
stricken Moody *do*, anyway?  Fill out forms, wait for DNA analysis 
to come back from the lab, interview peripheral witnesses, eat 
donuts?  Heck no.  Moody hits the street and nabs the Lestranges 
while the trail is *red hot*.  And if Mrs. Lestrange is going to try 
to find Voldemort, she seems like the type to get right on it; not 
the type to take 18 months to get it in gear.  

I still think canon is stronger for a torture date in late 1981 or 
early 1982.  Crouch is 19 when he is brought in.  The Ministry was 
under "great pressure" to catch the perpetrators.  Dumbledore says 
the attacks occurred when everyone thought they were safe.  When 
Voldemort fell, canon gives the impression that things got back to 
normal quickly -- Hagrid suggests people just snapped right out of 
trances.  And Karkaroff's Pensieve scene suggests that the DE 
network came a'tumbling down pretty quickly.  

Can you give me June 1982 as the latest date for the torture?  Can 
we have the Lestranges caught quickly, so that it is more likely 
that Neville's evidence caused their capture?  Can Neville be just 
turning two when the torture happens?  Can we have Mrs. Lestrange 
burst through the door as Neville is blowing out his birthday 
candles or something?  

Elkins wrote (on her objection to Reverse-Memory-Charm-Neville on 
the grounds that it was unsupported by canon.>
 
> Forgive me.  People sometimes say hard things when under pressure. 
> And besides, you *know* how Edgy I can get sometimes.  Especially 
on 
> the subject of timelines.  Timelines put everyone a bit on edge, 
> don't they?

No problem at all.  I know you didn't *mean* it.  You were just, er, 
provoking me into a spirited defense of Reverse-Memory-Charm 
Neville.  Nice job.

Now that Kimberly and her Faith, *they're* definitely squeamish.  
Something needs to be done about them, don't ya think?

Elkins again:

> It was that insistence on 1981 that did it.  1981, 1981...I just 
> *hate* that year 1981!  As if 1981 doesn't hog up enough of the 
> timeline already.  <snip>  >Why should 
> 1981 get all the glory?

This just doesn't sound like a Big Banger talking there.  Steady 
State adherents like to spread things out.  Everything is gradual.  
Each year gets its turn in the spotlight.  Things move at a glacial 
pace.  Leaves turn.  Paint dries.  Grass grows.  That sort of 
thing.  

Bangers are different.  Bangers *want* everything happening at a 
really frenzied pace.  We are very impatient, and we have no use for 
deferred gratification.  We *want* to compress the timeline.  That 
way we don't have any of those wavy special effects that show the 
passage of time.  Don't we?  Please agree with me.  I can't stand 
any more conflict, I just can't take it anymore, I can't!  

Elkins again:

> And...well...except for maybe when it comes to that Toadkeeper 
> thing.  I just don't know about that whole Toadkeeper idea.

You've been awfully patient and forgiving and all, so I'll let you 
in on a little secret.  

I'm not too sure about ToadKeeper.  Don't tell Judy or anything, but 
she stung me pretty good with her assault on ToadKeeper.  I'm just 
putting on a brave face at this point.  I'd *love* for you to come 
up with something for this Neville/Trevor issue so that I could 
scuttle ToadKeeper, 'cause it is seriously taking on water.  And it 
has a *really* lame nickname.  But until something better comes 
along, Big Bang has to keep ToadKeeper around . . . just in 
case . . . because it is the only Neville/Trevor theory around other 
than Faith.  And Faith and Big Bang will *never* get along.  

Elkins wrote (explaining why Neville didn't get a pint-sized 
Cruciatus Curse of his very own):

> Nah.  I think she just didn't know he was there.  He was hidden in 
> the closet.  I make the case for the closet for two reasons: (a)
> every cheesy issue-of-the-week made-for-TV-movie ever written that
> deals with early childhood trauma *always* has the kid hidden in 
the
> closet, and (b) it, uh, provides a literary parallel with Harry's 
own 
> early childhood experience.
> 
> So it's canonical to have Neville in the closet.  Really it is.

Hmmm.  If Reverse-Memory-Charm Neville is repeatedly re-living his 
parents' torture, doesn't it, uh, help, if he actually saw it?

How about if the torture happens right there in front of Neville
(with toddler Neville wearing his pointy birthday hat and all), but 
someone tells Mrs. Lestrange to spare Neville?  Then you can have 
your whole snappy "Crouch Jr. to the rescue" thing, which I do like 
very much, and I can have Neville actually *see* the whole darn 
thing.

As an aside, I am having some trouble closing the loop on Reverse-
Memory-Charm Neville, and now that Elkins is back on board, maybe 
she can help.  Why *is* Neville's memory so bad, exactly?  Was his 
memory actually damaged by the charm?  That's possible, I guess. 

But I have another, Bigger, variant about why Neville has a bad 
memory.  It's not that his memory is damaged, you see.  It is that 
he re-lives the torture when he is under stress.  So when Snape 
says "Add one rat spleen," Neville hears, "AAAAARRRRRRRGGGHHHH!!!"  
His memories of the torture just block out everything else.  When 
Neville is not under stress (like in Herbology or with Professor 
Lupin), he can actually hear what is being said to him and can 
perform.  

But then I don't know exactly how this is going to change when it is 
time for Neville to turn into Weird Edgy Neville.

Cindy (who thought we *were* discussing canon, but doesn't with to 
be set straight on that point)