Rita as a DE / Dumbledore's Flaw's / V and H / Book Title / The Good Guys / Wizard Insults / class code / etc

[Hollydaze]

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]