[HPforGrownups] Harry's home in Godric's Hollow, owls as pets?

[Heidi Tandy]

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